The Politics of Fear: How Sectarianism Sustains Lebanon’s Crisis

Divide and Conquer

The refugee crisis that resulted from the Israeli aggressions and bombardments of Lebanon, specifically the predominantly Shia regions of Southern Lebanon, the Bekaa, and the southern suburb of Beirut, has stirred up the not-so-dormant sectarian problems that plague our country.

Refugees from the affected areas flooded to “safer” regions primarily inhabited by Sunnis, Christians, or Druze. Throughout the war, non-Shia areas have seen less direct aggression from the Israeli military, in an attempt to create a popular uproar against Hezbollah from the different sects that make up the Lebanese social structure.

The Israeli government implemented a strategy of divide and conquer by dispersing the popular base of its immediate foe Hezbollah and the Shiite population and attempting to instigate internal strife between Shias and non-Shias. It managed to instill fear in the hearts of the people who opened their homes and welcomed refugees fleeing the war, who were being targeted in their shelters under the pretext of there being Hezbollah operatives in their midst. Netanyahu demonstrated this in his address to the Lebanese people on the 8th of October 2024, when he presented two options: either turn on Hezbollah and do the necessary to “uproot” it from our society—essentially starting a civil war—or share Gaza’s fate.

Thankfully, a ceasefire was reached on November 27 2024, effectively ending this round of battle. However, the war deepened the already existing scars within Lebanese society and reminded everyone of the fragile peace that holds the Lebanese social and political life together. Fear and hate are ever present in a country where membership to a tribe is effectively the essential source of identification for most people.

The Politics of Fear

What’s fascinating about fear is that it only takes a few people to spread it to the entirety of their clan for it to become the norm and affect the group’s view of, not only itself but the outside world as well. It’s much easier to convince people of the severity of the situation over their survival than to strive for peaceful and civil solutions to the problem based on dialogue and common understanding. Narratives and policies arise from this sense of fear, aiming to protect those frightened by creating a bubble around them. This bubble continues to breed fear and hatred, ultimately allowing the leaders of this “fear-mongering movement” to rise to the top of their community. In other words, fear becomes the very thing that holds the power of the so-called sectarian leaders, who position themselves as protectors and saviors of their groups. For these leaders, fear is a necessity to safeguard their positions of power.

This tactic is not new. During the Lebanese Civil War (1975–1990), militias leveraged communal fears to maintain control, often using narratives of existential threats to justify violence against other sects.

Today, we are led to believe that these sentiments have existed throughout history, even though the diverse communities that make up this mosaic-like region have coexisted for thousands of years. While crises and wars have occurred, and discrimination based on faith, ethnicity, and race may have happened at times, it was never the dominant policy of the rulers of this region, who prioritized obedience, loyalty, and maintaining peace within their dominion.

While sectarian divisions have played a role in Lebanese history, they were often secondary to other forms of social and political organization. During the Ottoman period, local governance was based on loyalty to the state rather than purely sectarian identity. The modern institutionalization of sectarianism, particularly through the 1943 National Pact and later the Taif Agreement, formalized these divisions and made them central to political life.

The Anatomy of Fear in Society

While there is definitely a political aspect to this phenomenon, arising from the exploitation of the cultural and religious differences in our society by the ruling elite to protect their positions of power by dominating their respective “groups”, this is not the focus of this post.

My focus here is on the actual emotions of the people. The fear that people from different sects have of the “others”, which can not be simplified to “divide and conquer”. Whether the ruling classes fostered this animosity throughout our history or it emerged from the accumulation of negative emotions resulting from wars, conflicts, and internal strife—or both—one cannot deny that fear exists. This fear consumes us as a society and thrives in difficult times.

Although, in theory, cities are perceived as more accepting and open than the countryside, studies suggest that Lebanese cities are merely dense clusters of townspeople who relocate in groups from their places of origin, choosing to live in close-knit communities that replicate their former rural lifestyles. The flow of immigrants from towns to cities was more than the city could handle and, with the lack of state interference and structure, it turned into a chaotic urban planning debacle, which our rulers immediately took advantage of. By severing certain regions from others (East/West Beirut), especially during and after the civil war—both economically and functionally (infrastructure, transportation, trade centers)—the elites managed to fragment our capital into small, loosely connected towns of unisectarian neighborhoods.

The Roots of Fear: Identity and Survival

In a system that stands at a deadlock at every decision, in the name of national unity, the basic rights and needs of the citizens are taken hostage. The rights of the “group” – represented by a handful of political, religious and financial elites – overtake the rights of the citizens. Lebanon’s political system elevates the status of the sects as the true political actors and beneficiaries of the system, through which individuals can access the state. In other words, non-sectarian citizens are excluded from various political rights such as running for election or getting appointed in top governmental position, making the non-sectarian people the true oppressed minority in this country.

Lebanon’s sectarian system ensures that political representation is based on religious affiliation, effectively marginalizing those who reject sectarian identity. While sectarian groups have their own internal struggles, non-sectarian citizens face systemic exclusion, unable to run for certain positions or access resources unless they affiliate with a sectarian bloc. This makes them a politically disenfranchised minority in a system that prioritizes communal over individual rights.

A group’s primary concern is survival—preserving its culture, traditions, and rituals. In the absence of a strong state that unites and governs all sects under its authority, survival can only be ensured through the accumulation of power and the confrontation of perceived enemies. A group’s survival is not contingent on better social and economic policies, it prioritizes the military option when it feels threatened by the possibility of a reduction in its power. In contrast, an individual’s life can be significantly improved when they have access to affordable healthcare, quality education, and effective infrastructure. Once basic survival is secured, individuals can begin to engage with more complex pursuits such as art, science, religion, and cultural development.

When a person’s individuality is crushed, and their basic rights stolen, all they are left with is fear. Fear of not surviving, fear of failure, fear of losing their only sense of identity—their clan. It is only natural, and very easily exploitable, to project this fear onto the people that do not look, act, think, pray or talk like us. Humanity has created scapegoats for as long as it has existed.

Breaking Free from Fear

Lebanon today stands at a crossroads, with a chance to rise from the ashes and rebuild itself by first establishing a functional civil state that treats all citizens equally under the law, regardless of sectarian background. The system that dominated Lebanese political life for the past century can no longer answer to the modern problems of the Lebanese people. A new social contract is needed to reimagine the relationship between society and the ruling authority, one that both respects the individuality of the citizens and also the cultural diversity that distinguishes Lebanon from its neighbors and make use of this rich heritage to set a new model for the region and the world.

To move beyond the entrenched politics of fear and division, it is imperative for Lebanon to foster a national dialogue that transcends sectarian lines. This involves promoting inclusive political reforms, strengthening civil society initiatives that encourage inter-sectarian collaboration, and implementing educational programs that emphasize shared national identity over communal affiliations. By prioritizing unity and understanding, Lebanon can pave the way for a more cohesive and resilient society, capable of addressing the challenges of the modern world.