Va-PoReg Country Report Lebanon 1900–2025

The territory had a special Status within the Ottoman Empire. On 10/05/1861 Mount Lebanon became semi-autonomous, when the Ottoman Sultan signed the Règlement Organique (Organic Regulation), which established the Mount Lebanon Mutasarrifate.¹ This regulation was the result of international intervention following the 1860 Mount Lebanon Civil War. The European powers were concerned about the instability in the region and the potential for further violence. They therefore worked with the Ottoman Sultan to establish a new system of government that would give the Lebanese people more autonomy. The 1861 agreement separated Mount Lebanon from Syria and reunited under a non-Lebanese Christian mutasarrıf (governor) appointed by the Ottoman sultan (Longrigg 1958).² In September 1864, the statute became permanent. The Mutasarrif was appointed by the Ottoman sultan, however, the approval of the European powers was needed.¹ The Ottoman army was not allowed to station itself in the lands of the Mutasarrifate except at the request of the Mutasarrif.² On 10/29/1845, the Ottomans introduced proportional sectarian representation in public offices. On 09/06/1864, a mixed administrative council composed of twelve delegates from the districts of the sanjak was established. These delegates were elected by the village shaykhs, who, in turn, were chosen by their respective village populations (Scheffler 2001). Village shaykhs were tasked with overseeing local matters. Although appointed by the Ottoman government in some cases, the shaykhs typically relied on the collective approval of those they governed to retain their roles. Confirmation of their positions often came through acclamation or general consent from the community (Freas 2010). However, the Lebanese Council of Notables was a consultative body, that did not have any legislative powers. The population had no say in politics. On 07/24/1908, the regions annexed to Mount Lebanon and in 1920 introduced elements of electoral participation when the Young Turks reinstated the Ottoman constitution and electoral law of 1876, which had been suspended by Sultan Abdulhamid II in 1878. This framework facilitated elections in Ottoman Syria in 1908, 1912, and 1914. Notably, Mount Lebanon’s population abstained from voting to protect the „autonomy” of their sanjak (Scheffler 2001). Since only a small elite part of the population took part in the election processes the regime is classified as an electoral oligarchical autocracy. LIED and V-Dem do not register the country for this time.

With the breakout of World War I and the participation of the Ottoman Empire the Protocol of 1861, which had established the semi-autonomous Mount Lebanon Mutasarrifate, was violated. The practical significance of the international guarantee provided under the Protocol of 1861 diminished when the signatory states became divided into two conflicting factions.³ The Protocol of 1861 had stipulated that the Ottoman army was not allowed to station in the Mount Lebanon Mutasarrifate. It is considered to be the end of the legitimate administrators and the start of Turkish administrators.⁴ Mount Lebanon came under military rule, resulting in a change in leadership and the dissolution of the administrative council, as a Muslim governor replaced a Christian one. Between 1915 and 1916, the Ottomans carried out executions of agitators whose advocacy for Arabism or „Lebanon“ had turned subversive. By the end of 1916, the combination of repressive military governance and the Arab revolt led by Sharif Husayn made either an Arab state or an independent Mount Lebanon the primary preferences of the local educated elite (Harris 2012). No elections were held during this period (LIED).

After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War in 1918, Arab and Entente forces entered Damascus and captured the city. This event marked the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the region and contributed to its dissolution. In accordance with an agreement reached between France and the United Kingdom in 1916, military governors were appointed to various districts. The French occupied the coast and the British-backed government of Prince Faysal in the Syrian interior. Subsequently, the military administration issued a declaration, promising the people both liberation and the opportunity to establish their own national governments. However, in 1920, European authorities unilaterally granted the French a League of Nations mandate over the territory, divided into Syria and Lebanon (Harris 2012, Kedourie 1964, Thompson 2000). Based on our observations, no multiparty executive or legislative elections were held during this period, which aligns with the observations of LIED. Moreover, political liberties are coded as absent by LIED and can be interpreted as ambiguous according to V-Dem’s PCLI. For the relevant regime period, V-Dem’s JCE indicates that judicial constraints on the executive are limited. At the same time, V-Dem’s LCE shows no value, which, with appropriate caution, can be interpreted as an absence of legislative constraints on the executive.

After the Ottoman Empire was formally split up by the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920, it was decided that four of its territories in the Middle East should be League of Nations mandates temporarily governed by the United Kingdom and France on behalf of the League.⁵ On 08/30/1920, the new State of Great Lebanon was established by Decree by the High Commissioner and declared on 09/01/1920. The newly established State was set to be overseen by a French administrator, aided by an appointed administrative council comprised of ten Christians, and seven Muslims and Druze, selected by the high commissioner to oversee its domestic affairs (Longrigg 1958, Harris 2012). Initially, a French governor, acting on behalf of the high commissioner for Lebanon and Syria, governed Lebanon was chief executive of Lebanon. Together with the high commissioner, they governed through a council of directors, appointed by the French, acting as a cabinet. This representative council mainly had advisory functions (Harris 2012). In 1922, France confirmed the universal male suffrage from the age of 21 and multimember constituencies that had existed in Mount Lebanon in 1914. Moreover, two-stage elections were introduced, where secondary electors were chosen by the primary electors through an absolute majority. (Scheffler 2001, Harris 2012). Based on our observations, no multiparty executive or legislative elections were held during this period, which aligns with the observations of LIED. Furthermore, LIED still codes political liberties as absent, V-Dem’s PCLI indicates an ambiguous presence in this time. For the relevant regime period, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were limited, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were moderate from 1922 onwards.

On this day France formed the Lebanese Republic. A constitution was adopted establishing a democratic republic with a parliamentary system of government along with equal sectarian representation in public employment and government (Longrigg 1958, Traboulsi 2007). The first election under this new constitution was held in 1929. However, in May 1932, the French suspended the constitution due to a budget crisis and concerns over the potential presidential candidacy of Muhammad al-Jist, a Muslim politician (Thompson 2000). In 1933, Antoun Saadeh established the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP), advocating for a „Greater Syrian identity“ that incorporated elements of romanticism and European fascism. (Harris 2012: 187). That year, the new high commissioner, Damien de Martiel, reinstated parliament and introduced direct voting for deputies in the 1934 elections. Bishara al-Khuri formed the Constitutional Bloc, while the high commissioner continued interfering with candidate lists and vote-buying (Harris 2012). The amended 1926 constitution was reinstated in January 1938, following elections held in late 1937, before it was suspended again after the outbreak of the Second World War on 09/11/1939 (Fieldhouse 2006). According to LIED multiparty executive and legislative elections were absent in 1926, from 1927 onward only multiparty legislative elections were held. Male suffrage was achieved in 1926 and universal suffrage in 1952 (LIED). Besides, the state of political liberties is coded as absent per LIED. V-Dem’s PCLI indicates them as ambiguous. For the relevant regime period, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were limited, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were moderate.

Following France’s defeat in June 1940, Lebanon remained under Vichy government control. On 06/08/1941, British and Free French troops invaded Lebanon, leading to the surrender of Vichy forces on 07/12/1941. This effectively ended France’s control of Lebanon and established British-dominated administration over Lebanon and Syria, with Free French General Georges Catroux serving as high commissioner under British oversight and promising independence (Harris 2012, Thompson 2000). Alfred Naqash remained president with a multi-confessional government (Fieldhouse 2006). Independence was declared by the Free French on 11/26/1941, though actual British control continued. On 11/08/1943 the Chamber of Deputies approved a set of constitutional amendments. These revisions removed the provision that designated the French mandatory authority as the exclusive source of political power and jurisdiction, reinstated Arabic as the sole official language of the nation and introduced a new design for the Lebanese flag (Traboulsi 2007). on 08/29/1943 and On 09/04/1943 parliamentary elections preparing independence took place.⁶ According to LIED only multiparty legislative elections were held during this period. In addition to that, political liberties were still coded as absent per LIED. V-Dem’s PCLI states them as ambiguous. For the relevant regime period, V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were limited, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were moderate.

On this date Catroux announced the termination of the French Mandate in Lebanon (Traboulsi 2007). With independence universal suffrage for all adults (males and females) was introduced. However, the Chamber of Deputies was shared equally between Christians and Muslims, rather than elected by universal suffrage that would have provided a Muslim majority. On 09/21/1943 Bishara al-Khuri was indirectly elected by parliament (Scheffler 2001).⁷ In that year, Maronite leader Bishara al-Khuri and Sunni leader Riyad al-Suhl reached an agreement known as the National Pact. This informal agreement outlined sectarian power sharing with a 6:5 ratio between Christians and Muslims in government positions and designated specific government roles: a Maronite president, a Sunni prime minister, a Shiite speaker of parliament, and a Greek-Orthodox deputy speaker and deputy prime minister. These principles of consociationalism guided the elections until the Taif Agreement in 1989 (Scheffler 2001, Bogaards 2019). In 1944, the French handed over the control of the civilian administration to a nationalist government, before the last French troops withdrew from the now independent state on 12/31/1946 (Thompson 2000, Scheffler 2001). On 05/25/1947, the first round of a general election took place, followed by a second round on 06/01/1947. The majority of seats were won by independent candidates. As’ad AbuKhalil characterized the 1947 election as „one of the most corrupt in Lebanese history“ and alleged that Camille Chamoun had manipulated the results through rigging.⁸ The „White Revolution” of 1952 ousted President El-Khuri and introduced compulsory male voting and limited women’s suffrage with educational restrictions. These restrictions as well as compulsory voting were lifted in 1957 (Scheffler 2001). Camille Chamoun succeeded El Khuri and assumed office on 09/23/1952. He stretched his powers to a maximum, effectively acting like an autocrat, favoring strict interpretation of the constitution over the spirit of the National Pact. He chose weak prime ministers who relied on his favors rather than representing their communities. By directly controlling major ministries through their directors-general, he bypassed ministerial oversight. He also manipulated elections by creating small electoral districts with fewer deputies, ensuring his control in the legislature and reinforcing sectarianism. Media reported, that his authoritarianism had become so extreme that the head of state effectively monopolized all branches of government (Traboulsi 2012: 130-131). After the assassination of a journalist, clashes erupted between Christians and non-Christians, involving challenges to the National Pact and Chamoun’s intention to prolong his presidency. Upon the request of President Chamoun, British and American troops entered Lebanon from 07/15/1958. The 1958 insurrection concluded when the parliament chose Fu’ad Shihab with 48 votes on 07/30/1958 as Chamoun’s successor, with ten of Chamoun’s loyalists abstaining. Chamoun left office on 09/23/1958, and Shihab took over. American troops departed by late October (Harris 2012, Traboulsi 2007). In 1960, Shihab increased the parliament’s size from sixty-six to ninety-nine to include more of his supporters. The 1960 electoral law introduced voter seclusion, but voters still brought ballot papers from outside (Harris 2012). Aside from technical inaccuracies, electoral fraud is prevalent in Lebanon and often coincides with a disregard for statistical concerns. Prior to the establishment of the Constitutional Court in 1994, conducting an impartial assessment of electoral irregularities was unattainable, as Parliament held the authority to nullify seats obtained through fraudulent means. In the majority of instances, information regarding invalid votes was either unavailable or, at best, unreliable. (Scheffler 2001). Most datasets, including GWF, HTW, LIED, MCM, classify Lebanon in this period as democratic. However, RoW classifies the regime as an electoral autocracy and BMR as an autocracy. PCR categorizes the regime as a semidemocracy. Based on our observations, multiparty executive and legislative elections were held during this period, which aligns with the observations of LIED. LIED categorizes elections during this time as competitive. V-Dem’s EF&FI scores their elections mostly as somewhat free and fair with brief periods of ambiguity. Their CEI mostly scores elections as not really clean with brief periods where they are scored not clean. As per FH’s classification since 1972, the country is considered free with a score ranging from 2 to 4, which we also interpret as free in our framework. Besides, according to LIED political liberties were not achieved for the whole time. Whereas V-Dem’s PCLI underlines that they were somewhat present. From 1944 to 1969, according to Polity5, the executive encountered slight limitations on decision-making power imposed by other institutions. Since 1970, based on Polity5’s assessment, the executive’s power was noticeably limited but not substantial, fitting Intermediate Category 2. During this regime period, V-Dem’s JCE is classified by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were limited, whereas V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were moderate. According to our classification the regime is an electoral hybrid regimen that mixes democratic and autocratic elements.

On this date, a civil war erupted in Lebanon, causing the Lebanese state to collapse as Maronites fought Palestinians and the Leftist/Muslim National Front (Harris 2012, Marshall 2018b, Collelo 1987: 29). Fundamental state institutions like the army, president and cabinet disintegrated or split up, with the parliament becoming the sole undivided institution. Subsequently, the parliament, elected between 04/16-30/1972, extended its term repeatedly (Scheffler 2001). Hence, even though Lebanon’s state and regime endured, they did so lacking authority (Harris 2012: 235). The war can be categorized into distinct periods: an initial outbreak in the mid-1970s, followed by Syrian and Israeli interventions in the late 1970s. The conflict between the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel escalated in the early 1980s, leading to the 1982 Israeli invasion. According to LIED multiparty executive and legislative elections were held in 1975, from 1976 onward no multiparty executive and legislative elections were held. There were no elections in 1975, but it makes sense to code multiparty executive and legislative elections until 1976 when new elections were due. Per FH’s scoring for the period between 1975 and 1981, the country is classified as partly free with a score of 8, which we categorize as rather not free. For the remaining period the country scores from 9 to 10 as not free, which we categorize as rather not free. LIED classifies political liberties as absent in this time. V-Dem’s PCLI decreased into a range which we interpret as an ambiguous state.

Subsequently, there was a brief period of multinational involvement, culminating in a resolution that resulted in the Syrian occupation.⁹ In the wake of the ongoing civil war Israel occupied the south of Lebanon from 02/26/1985 to 05/25/2000.¹⁰ Furthermore, Lebanon was occupied by Syria from 05/31/1976 to 04/30/2005.¹¹ The war’s conclusion was initiated by the Taif Agreement in 1989, which was officially approved on 11/04. President René Mouawad was elected on 11/05/1989 by the parliament that had been elected in 1972 - nearly 17 years earlier, before the civil war began. This parliament had not been renewed through elections during the entire civil war period, significantly undermining its democratic legitimacy. Mouawad’s term was short-lived as he fell victim to a car bombing in Beirut on 11/22/1989 while returning from Lebanese Independence Day events. Following his assassination, Elias Hrawi was elected president by the same 1972 parliament on 11/24/1989, with 47 out of 53 members voting. [4] Based on our observations, no multiparty executive or legislative elections were held during this period, which aligns with the observations of LIED. As classified by FH for the period until 1986, the country scores between 9 and 10 as not free, which we interpret as rather not free. For the rest of the period the country scores between 11 and 14 as not free, which we also interpret as not free. Political liberties are coded as absent per LIED. Per V-Dem’s PCLI they score what we interpret as an ambiguous state.

On this date, the civil war and the period of no central regime authority ended. In August 1990, the parliament and the new president agreed on constitutional amendments embodying some of the political reforms envisioned at Taif.⁹ Despite the end of the Lebanese civil war, Syrian forces continued to maintain a significant presence in Lebanon, exerting substantial influence over the country’s affairs. In 1991, both Lebanon and Syria signed a Treaty of „Brotherhood, Cooperation, and Coordination,“ which provided legitimacy to the Syrian military’s continued presence in Lebanon. According to the treaty’s terms, Lebanon committed not to pose a threat to Syria’s security, while Syria assumed the responsibility of safeguarding Lebanon from external threats.¹¹ Based on our observations, no multiparty executive or legislative elections were held during this period, which aligns with the observations of LIED. As classified by FH for this regime period, the country fluctuates between 9 and 10, scoring not free, which we interpret as rather not free. Moreover, LIED’s outcomes code political liberties as absent. Whereas V-Dem’s PCLI indicates an ambiguous state regarding political liberties.

This date marks the second round of the first general election since 1972. Independent candidates won most seats, although most of them were considered members of various blocs.¹² Before the Israeli election in May 1999, Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Barak made a promise that all Israeli forces would withdraw from Southern Lebanon within a year, which effectively meant withdrawing support for the South Lebanon Army. Efforts to negotiate a peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon, including Syria, failed due to Syria’s control of Lebanon until 2005. Consequently, Barak decided to withdraw the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to the internationally recognized border. The complete Israeli withdrawal to this border occurred on 05/24/2000. Following the withdrawal, the South Lebanon Army quickly collapsed as Hezbollah applied pressure on the remaining units, leading most officers and administration officials to flee to Israel.¹⁰ On 02/28/2005 the government of prime minister Najib Miqati as head of an interim government took over, whose main task was to run the elections.¹³ As a result of the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1559 and in the wake of the assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, with allegations of Syrian involvement in his death, a popular uprising known as the Cedar Revolution took place across the country. On 03/05/2005, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad declared in his speech to the Syrian parliament that Syrian forces would commence their withdrawal from Lebanon. This withdrawal was completed on 04/30/2005, marking the full withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon.¹¹ In May and June 2005, Lebanon conducted general elections to elect the 128 members of its parliament. These elections marked a significant moment as they were the second in three decades to take place without any Syrian military or intelligence involvement in Lebanon. Notably, a single electoral block secured an outright victory for the first time in Lebanese history, and these elections also represented the first instance of United Nations monitoring.¹⁴ The EU Election Observation Mission reported serious irregularities of the electoral process, described media coverage as unbalanced and found substantial weaknesses in the electoral framework.¹⁵ Parliamentary elections were held in Lebanon on 06/07/2009 to elect all 128 members of the Parliament of Lebanon. The parliament elected in 2009 had repeatedly extended its own term, citing the need for electoral reforms as well as security concerns related to the civil war in Syria.¹⁶ Hence, between 2013 and 2018 the regime in Lebanon was a borderline case between a non-electoral transitional regime and an electoral autocracy. Subsequent elections in 2018 are regarded as free and fair, however, vote buying was rampant, and the electoral framework retained substantial structural flaws associated with the sectarian political system.¹⁷ Prime Minister Saad Hariri resigned in July after failing to organize a government. A new government headed by Mikati was installed in September 2021.¹⁷ The most recent elections were held on 05/15/2022. Based on our observations, multiparty executive and legislative elections were held during this period, which aligns with the observations of LIED. LIED categorizes elections as competitive since 2000. V-Dem’s EF&FI scores electoral freedom and fairness as ambiguous between 1992 and 1990. From 2000 to 2008 it scored elections somewhat free and fair and from 2009 to 2017 as such. After 2018 it scores them as somewhat free and fair. V-Dem’s CEI score varies between no, not really and ambiguous electoral cleanliness during this time. As classified by FH for the period until 2004, the country is scored from 11 to 14 as not free, which corresponds to our interpretation of not free. From 2005 the country scores from 9 to 10 as not free, which we categorize as rather not free. In addition to that, LIED considers political liberties as constantly absent. V-Dem’s PCLI scores them as ambiguous until 2004. Since 2005 political rights are somewhat present. Since 2005, according to Polity5, during this period, the executive’s constraints fell into Intermediate Category 3, between substantial limitations and executive parity or subordination. V-Dem’s JCE is interpreted by us as indicating that judicial constraints on the executive were limited until 2011 and moderate for the rest of the period, while V-Dem’s LCE is classified by us as indicating that legislative constraints on the executive were moderate. In this regime period Lebanon is again a borderline case between an electoral autocracy and an electoral hybrid regime. However, our indicators slightly weight into the direction of an electoral autocracy.

Electoral Autocracy as of 07/01/2025 continued.