The functioning of state and society in modern Lebanon is challenging classical concepts of political order and governance on many levels: A state monopoly of legitimate violence in the ‘Weberian’ sense does not exist, but public security and legality have not yet broken down. Key government institutions have been vacant for months and years, but public services continue to be provided. The country seems to be in almost perpetual political crisis, but real estate investment continues its decades-long boom. Interference of external actors in Lebanese domestic politics is frequently blamed as a root cause of the country’s problems, but internal actors and even government institutions are actively encouraging it. Corruption is unanimously condemned, but at the same time frequently used as an almost necessary instrument to circumvent administrative obstacles and getting things done. Impunity seems to undermine the credibility of state institutions, but postponing or circumventing formal justice is sometimes considered as an act of wisdom to prevent violent conflict and preserve peace. In spite of the much-mentioned ‘weakness’, ‘inefficiency’ and ‘heterogeneity’ of the Lebanese state, the country has, until now, managed to adapt to enormous challenges and ruptures – most notably the influx of Syrian refugees – in a much better way than some of its more centralized neighbours.
In view of all these paradoxes, the ‘deficits’ of statehood in Lebanon – as perceived through the lenses of ‘Weberian’ or ‘Westphalian’ state models – do not indicate an absence of political order, but rather ask for the development of more complex, comprehensive and flexible concepts of political order and governance.
During the last ten years, a number of new concepts have emerged in the social sciences that attempt to capture the complexity of similar situations in various countries. Apart from shifting the focus of attention from the state to problems of governance and governmentality, they include concepts such as ‘hybrid political order’, ‘limited statehood’, ‘mediated state’, ‘institutional multiplicity’, ‘parallel government’, ‘ungoverned space’, ‘creative chaos’, etc.
