ABSTRACT
In Chapter 3, we saw that under the Syrian tutelage that extended from 1990 to 2005 Lebanon’s state institutions were not built and the power-sharing arrangements paralyzed any move toward genuine peace and democracy. Moderate leaders of the various Lebanese communities and sects manipulated specific institutional arrangements to benefit their own positions within their communities at the expense of other politicians. Pro-Syrian politicians acted in concert to maintain their interests, please Damascus and limit democracy. Often with Syrian backing, disagreements between the politicians, particularly the members of the Troika, over electoral institutions, representation and rules of governance served to rekindle sectarian politics. Syria played the important role of external guarantor for domestic peace and stability, but did not contribute to the consolidation of power-sharing institutions after 1989, when the Tai’f Agreement ended the civil war. Under Syrian tutelage, the Syrian-Lebanese security regime violated the Tai’f and initiated semi-authoritarian rule that was alien to Lebanon’s tradition of consociationalism.
