Hezbollah holds sway over the Lebanese state, and it’s hard to see it go away

Chatham House’s Lina Khatib recently launched a paper entitled How Hezbollah holds sway over the Lebanese state. The paper deals with the past trajectories through which Hezbollah has become the pivotal actor in Lebanese politics. To discuss her findings and their implications for the state of crisis that has gripped Lebanon for over a year, Chatham House convened a panel discussion July 8. The panel agreed that Hezbollah has played its cards well and has become engrained in Lebanon’s corrupt and non-functioning political system. In fact, it has become its most powerful player in many ways. The current crisis has made its transition from a purported ‘defender of the oppressed’ to an established and corrupt part of the political elite all the more clear. Unfortunately, the panel considered the most needed reforms that would actually benefit the Lebanese people unlikely to succeed in the near future.

The speakers were:

Joseph Daher
Visiting Professor,
University of Lausanne

Lina Khatib
Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme,
Chatham House

Mona Yacoubian
Senior Adviser,
U.S. Institute for Peace

Emile Hokayem (moderator)
Senior Fellow for Middle East Security,
IISS

Hezbollah as a unique, but entrenched part of the corrupt system

Lina Khatib summarized the findings of her new paper. She describes what is commonplace for Lebanese: that Hezbollah has become an entrenched part of the Lebanese system. There is no ‘state-within-a-state’: “Hezbollah permeates the state in Lebanon.” It employs many of the practices that have come to define the corrupt political system. There is no transparency on government tenders, and using ministries to provide rents to constituents is the standard.

Joseph Daher maintains that Hezbollah is the primary defender of the Lebanese neoliberal, sectarian political system. It presents itself as a defender of the oppressed (following the Iranian ideology of ‘Khomeinism‘), but this has proved mainly rhetorical. In practice, it oppresses labor unions and favors wealthy industrialists and crime bosses through the ministries it controls. In short, it behaves exactly as the other political entities in Lebanon.

Nonetheless, Khatib explained that Hezbollah is also unique in Lebanon. It has surveillance capacity. Not just within the state, but within its opponents too. This gives it a large advantage over others. Similarly, most parties take advantage of Lebanon’s corrupt political institutions. Hezbollah is different because they have been systematic in using any opportunity – no matter how small – to advance their influence. Hezbollah has political and coercive leverage over both its allies and its opponents, which gives it a great advantage within the Lebanese state. Even opponents of Hezbollah make deals with it behind closed doors – or sometimes even openly. This is what keeps the system in place. As Mona Yacoubian put it, Hezbollah has transformed into the “praetorian guard” of the corrupt Lebanese system.

Toeing the line between state and non-state

Hezbollah’s other major advantage is its status as a hybrid actor. Khatib explains that toeing the line between state and non-state is an ideal situation for Hezbollah. It has influence and legitimacy due to its ties to the state, but is not really a state actor, and is not seen as really in charge of state institutions. There are four main reasons why Hezbollah has no intention of changing this situation:

• The Lebanese state is very weak and not appealing to take over
• There is no Shia majority in Lebanon; outright Hezbollah rule would not be tolerated
• Hezbollah avoids accountability by shirking ownership of the state
• Hezbollah is under sanctions as a terrorist organization in the West, complicating its role as would-be regime.

All of them means all of them

Yacoubian pointed out that Hezbollah’s image has been tarnished, even among its own constituency. The slogan of the Lebanese protest movement ‘all of them means all of them’ refuses to differentiate among the political class. “You see now a political class that is defined purely by self-enrichment and is utterly devoid of any pretense of representing any higher ideal or value.” Yacoubian would go so far as to maintain that there are few real political divisions left among Lebanon’s ruling class.

Hezbollah’s resilience: Iranian support and no alternatives

According to Khatib, Iran’s support to Hezbollah is absolute. Anyone who thinks that Hezbollah can Lebanonize and be removed from Iran’s orbit is dreaming. Steadfast Iranian support makes it stronger than its domestic opponents. With its constituency, it proves resilient because it argues that there is no alternative. Hezbollah’s constituency might not like the party, but they see that there is no realistic alternative to the services it provides. Daher added that Hezbollah’s humanitarian outreach is very large. It claims to have helped some 50.000 families on top of their normal activities in the months of April and May alone. No other actor in Lebanon can match that.

Prospects for reform

So how to move forward? Khatib made it clear that the solution is not to extract Hezbollah from Lebanon, as this would be impossible. A solution would be to reform the Lebanese political system. This needs to be Lebanese-led, but it will require foreign aid. Yacoubian agreed. She proposed a number of concrete reforms that foreign actors can contribute to:

• Support the Lebanese Armed Forces, the only state institution standing between where we are today and total chaos. This is one of the few policies that is continuing today, primarily by the US.
• Cabinet formation and the ability to move forward with reforms are essential. The US, Gulf, and EU can do more to pressure the political elite to form a technocratic government. Steps towards this could be sanctions against the most corrupt political leaders who are obstructing government formation. This is currently happening haphazardly, but it could be done more concertedly.
• The international community can and should do more in the way of humanitarian assistance to the most vulnerable Lebanese. Bypassing the government is vital to avoid corruption. Perhaps a special UN agency could be tasked with this.

Khatib warned that economic pressure and sanctions alone are unlikely to change Hezbollah’s behavior on its own. As with the IRGC, a weakened currency only benefits Hizbollah, as they make their money abroad, in US dollars. The same is true for Assad in Syria. Sanctions are important, but they aren’t a primary tool. They need to be part of a comprehensive approach.

The panel was pessimistic about the prospects of efficient foreign support for reform. Khatib warned that Hezbollah benefits from the common attitude that sees Lebanon as a lost cause. If the international community gives up and maintains the status quo, Hezbollah benefits. Therefore, bottom-up reform is key. But Daher believes that the Lebanese protest movement has failed to create a unified answer to the corrupt system. He sees the international response as lacking originality. They are now attempting to get Saudi Arabia back to the table and to resume cabinet formation. These efforts will sustain the sectarian parties and system in the paradigm that has been employed for the last several decades.

Khatib emphasized that incremental change must be possible. The gradual approach by which Hezbollah grew its influence can be reversed in small steps. Nonetheless, Hokayem summarized Daher’s pessimistic view. Reform won’t come from the top down in Lebanon, it isn’t emerging in an organized form from the bottom up, and meaningful change is unlikely to come from the outside.

Watch the recording of the event here:
https://www.facebook.com/CHMENAProg/videos/1419092855114088