Stable instability: the Syrian conflict and the postponement of the 2013 Lebanese parliamentary elections

Given the morass of the Syrian civil war and Lebanon’s exposure to the consequences, this article seeks to explore how the intersecting dynamics of Lebanese domestic conflicts and the multiple implications of the bloodbath in Syria have influenced the behaviour of Lebanese political parties in the on-going struggle over the formulation of a new electoral law, leading to a broad consensus among the country’s parties to postpone the 2013 parliamentary elections. The article argues that, while the usual attempts to profit at the expense of other groups in society are still present and that external patrons still wield great influence, the decision to postpone the elections also demonstrates a degree of pragmatism and political development since, despite dire predictions to the contrary, Lebanon has not succumbed to the return of its own civil war. Instead a complex mixture of pragmatism, elision of interests and external influence, combined with local agency has led Lebanon into a situation of stable instability

Sectarianism and political order in Iraq and Lebanon

Although Iraq and Lebanon are deeply divided societies, they have followed varying political trajectories. Whilst Lebanon has accommodated sectarianism within a consociational democracy since its inception, until 2003 Iraq had an authoritarian regime that ostensibly repressed sectarianism. However, after 2003, Iraqi politics began to converge with the consociationalism of Lebanon. Taking a longitudinal approach, this study explains this puzzle by focusing on one factor: sectarianism. It asks how and why sectarianism has shaped the political trajectories and regime types in the two cases and, conversely, how sectarianism has been shaped by these trajectories and regimes