Beirut’s Elections: Federalism Remains the Only Solution

By Hicham Bou Nassif |Weinberg Associate Professor of International Relations and the Middle East and George R. Roberts Fellow at Claremont McKenna College-California

I often write that many things in Lebanon would be laughable, if only our circumstances allowed us the luxury of laughter. For some time now, I’ve been following the news surrounding the municipal elections in Beirut. I add it to the long and growing list of episodes that are both comical and tragic. 

Consider, for instance, the electoral list formed by the capital’s main political forces and endorsed by them in yesterday’s election. This list includes parties aligned with armed Shiite factions alongside their staunchest opponents; deeply corrupt figures and those claiming to be untainted; Islamists likely hostile to “Christian”; and Christians presumably no less hostile in return. In short, the list brings together diametrical opposites. Why form such a coalition, knowing in advance that its components are fundamentally incompatible—indeed, irreconcilable? The answer lies in the perceived need to preserve national balance — i.e., to ensure that half the municipal council is Christian, and the other half Muslim. 

Ever since I became politically aware, Beirut’s municipal elections have followed a painfully familiar script. As election day approaches, a wave of anxiety spreads — particularly among Christian communities — fueled by the fear that the demographic majority of Muslims in the capital could overwhelm them at the ballot box. This fear is compounded by the option voters have to cross out individual names, raising the specter of an all-Muslim municipal council. In response, political leaders from across the spectrum, no matter how ideologically opposed, scramble to assemble a single, all-inclusive electoral list. 

Their shared goal is not governance, reform, or development, but rather a vague and desperate attempt to “preserve balance” between the sects. Once the list wins, as it usually does, the result is a municipal council divided evenly between Christians and Muslims, yet completely paralyzed by internal contradictions, mutual mistrust, and the lack of any unifying vision. What follows is six years of stagnation, finger-pointing, and mounting public frustration, until the next elections arrive and the cycle begins all over again. 

Is the concern over Christian representation in the capital justified? Yes, to a degree — especially when considering the model of Tripoli, the predominantly Muslim city that seemingly cannot tolerate even a single Christian (God forbid!) on its municipal council. Not to mention, not a single woman either. But the solution to Christian underrepresentation is not what we saw yesterday, a grotesque alliance of the Lebanese Forces with Hezbollah, Amal with Mikati, the FPM with whoever else happened to be around. The solution lies in giving Achrafieh, if we may use the term, its right to self-determination, by establishing two separate municipalities within Beirut: one for the Christian-majority areas, and one for the Muslim-majority. 

Why hasn’t this happened? Why does Beirut get divided into two electoral districts for parliamentary elections but not for municipal ones? There are two answers. 

First, Muslim political forces understand that their demographic advantage in Beirut translates into political leverage when negotiating with Christian parties. That’s why they cling to the slogan of “the unity of the capital” in municipal affairs. But this so-called unity clashes with Christian public opinion, which increasingly favors a separate municipality for Achrafieh and rejects a status quo that keeps the demographic minority a permanent political minority. The disgraceful performance of Beirut’s municipality after the 2020 port explosion only strengthened this sentiment, as many residents witnessed firsthand its failure in a time of desperate need. 

Second, Christian political forces themselves have not seriously pushed for the creation of two municipalities. Just as they’ve failed to advocate meaningfully for converting Hamat Airport into a civilian one despite clear national security implications given past experiences on the road to and at Beirut International Airport, they’ve remained passive on the issue of municipal division. 

Thus, the demographic dominance of the Muslim majority intersects with the irresponsibility of Christian leadership to produce dysfunctional municipal councils that ultimately fail all of Beirut’s residents. Christians rejecting the current status quo does not mean they wish to marginalize Muslims. After all, how did Muslims benefit from the council’s performance after the port explosion? 

The alternative is clear, and it would serve everyone better: two municipal councils, eliminating the tired debate over “balance,” and allowing voters to support candidates based on developmental platforms. Let the two councils compete in delivering services. Let them collaborate where possible. Anything would be better than the absurd charade we continue to endure — an arrangement that only fosters intercommunal tension and guarantees municipal failure. 

To be clear, I am not arguing that solving Beirut’s sectarian problem will automatically fix all its other issues. After all, towns like Jounieh, entirely Christian, have no sectarian disputes, yet their municipal performance is hardly exemplary. Identity doesn’t explain everything. But I am arguing that no serious problem can be addressed unless we first confront the sectarian question head-on. 

Ethno-geographic federalism remains the only viable solution — for Beirut, and for all of Lebanon. 

This article was originally published in Arabic by Nida al-Watana on 19 May  2025. The original can be found here.

The views expressed in this op-ed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of SyriacPress.