Between resilience and ruin: Lebanon’s sectarian divide and the path to survival

The funeral procession of Hezbollah’s Secretary-General, Hassan Nasrallah, and the head of its Executive Council, Hashem Safieddine, drew hundreds of thousands of mourners from across Lebanon and the world yesterday. Representing various sects, the crowd arguably stood as a powerful symbol of national unity. The huge scale of the gathering sent a striking message to the world that despite the devastation of the recent war with Israel, Hezbollah’s base remains deeply loyal. For many Shia communities, especially in the Beqaa Valley and southern Lebanon, Nasrallah was not just a political leader, but also a symbol of resistance against Israeli occupation. His funeral became a rallying point for those who see Hezbollah as the defender of their identity and dignity.

Yet, beneath the surface of this show of unity, questions linger about Hezbollah’s future. The recent war with Israel left Lebanon in ruins, with entire districts reduced to rubble and thousands displaced. While Hezbollah claims the ceasefire as a victory, arguing that Israel’s inability to make progress on the ground forced it to halt hostilities, others see the conflict as a setback for the movement. Critics point to the heavy toll of the war: the loss of prominent leaders, the economic devastation and the growing resentment among non-Shia communities who blame Hezbollah for provoking the conflict. These contradictions have fuelled debates about whether Hezbollah’s influence is waning, both on the battlefield and in Lebanon’s fractured political landscape.

The funeral’s display of unity, however, cannot mask the deep fractures in Lebanon’s social fabric.

Sectarianism is a defining feature of Lebanese politics, and it has become a disease with no cure. From the National Pact of 1943 to the Taif Agreement of 1989, Lebanon’s political system has institutionalised sectarian divisions, ensuring that power is distributed among religious groups rather than citizens. This system has bred clientelism, with political leaders relying on sectarian loyalty to maintain their positions. The recent war with Israel has only deepened these divisions. While Hezbollah’s supporters see the group as a necessary bulwark against Israeli aggression, others blame it for dragging Lebanon into a conflict it cannot afford. The result is a society increasingly polarised between those who stand with Hezbollah and those who see it as an obstacle to peace and stability.

READ: PA security forces attack vigil honouring Hezbollah’s Nasrullah

The ideology of Hezbollah is the driving force of resilience amongst the Shia community. These people stayed overnight in Beirut in order to attend Nasrallah’s funeral the following day. The enormous numbers, the testimonies and the expressed emotions of resilience of these communities, communities that lost their family members and homes during the war, was nothing but a demonstration that Hezbollah’s community still exists. In search of refuge in other areas in Lebanon, these communities suffered from discrimination. Regardless of some news about unity, there are many voices on the streets that blame Hezbollah for the war. Many families and individuals refused to rent their homes to the displaced supporters of Hezbollah fearing that their properties could be bombed, or simply because of sectarianism or, in other harsher words, hatred and exclusion.

On the Lebanese future of co-existence, this is considered very dangerous. A huge part of the Lebanese community relies on tourism, and the war (the responsibility for which, it is said, lies with Hezbollah) is reported to have affected this sector enormously. And this sector is a source of living for many people. Furthermore, it is a well-known fact that the number of Lebanese expats around the world exceeds the number of Lebanese citizens residing in their own country. It means that there has always been a priority by the Lebanese community to visit the country peacefully, visit the family and simply enjoy their time. The war further complicated this need.

The country is divided between communities driven by irreconcilable ideologies.

In southern villages, Hezbollah’s stronghold, residents view resistance to Israel as a sacred duty tied to their Shia identity. Meanwhile, in cosmopolitan Beirut neighbourhoods, secular-minded entrepreneurs argue that endless conflict scares off investors and tourists. It is important to mention that these groups live mere miles apart, yet their priorities — survival versus prosperity — reflect a country torn between very opposing priorities.

Moreover, Lebanon’s history is a litany of crises, each exacerbating the sectarian divisions that have plagued the country since its founding. But sectarianism is not just a political issue, it has infiltrated every aspect of life, from access to jobs and housing to education and healthcare. Moreover, the past decade has been particularly brutal: the Syrian refugee crisis strained resources and heightened tensions between communities; the Covid-19 pandemic exposed the fragility of the healthcare system; the 2019 economic collapse wiped out savings and plunged millions into poverty; and the Beirut port explosion in 2020 laid bare the corruption and incompetence of the political class. The recent war with Israel, coupled with the ongoing conflict in Gaza, has only deepened the sense of despair. With each crisis, the social fabric frays further, raising fears that Lebanon could descend into another civil war.

The dilemma is real. People have the right to live in peace, not least because they have suffered enough, and it’s easy to put blame on the outgroup (in that case between people who support and oppose Hezbollah). However, the definition of peace differs between various communities in the country. There are those who believe that peace cannot hold as long as there is the state of Israel, and those who prefer not to interfere with this geopolitical conflict and focus on revitalising the country.

It is very clear that no group can exclude the other (and they shouldn’t), but the recent developments have made coexistence between people with different political and religious ideologies more difficult than ever. This leads us to ask if we are at risk of facing a new civil war. Are the new government and president able to balance these completely different goals? Is social unity better than a bottom-up approach or does it require political will and decisions?

This leads us to the bigger question about whether or not the fate of Lebanon is really dictated within the country.

Conflicting superpowers remain present in the Lebanese political sphere, especially the United States, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Although social unity requires efforts from all levels of the hierarchy, it is the prerequisite of peace in Lebanon regardless of what comes next.

READ: Huge gap between declared principles of international law and its application, says legal expert

The time for half-measures and empty promises is over. Lebanon’s leaders must rise above their narrow interests and prioritize the nation’s survival. This means dismantling the sectarian system that has perpetuated corruption and inequality, investing in institutions that serve all citizens equally and fostering a culture of dialogue and reconciliation.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.