Decentralization in Lebanon: History, Legitimacy, and General Challenges (1/2)

«The first reform must be intelligent decentralization», Jules Payot

Decentralization is a mode of state organization that consists of transferring powers, responsibilities, and resources from central government to elected local authorities, which are legally autonomous, in order to bring decision-making closer to citizens and improve the effectiveness of public action. It allows Lebanon to transfer part of the state's powers, competencies, and resources to elected and autonomous territorial communities – notably municipalities and decentralized entities – while maintaining the unity of the state. The objective is to strengthen and activate local governance, citizen participation, and the balanced development of regions.

According to Ms. Rayanne Assaf, doctor of law and legal affairs officer at the Presidency of the Republic between 2008 and 2014, “in politics, there is no miracle solution.” “Change happens gradually, step by step, and this reality is particularly true for pluralistic countries,” she emphasizes. Lebanon, with its complex confessional and political mosaic, like all pluralistic countries, has no universal recipe or miracle solution capable of resolving institutional imbalances or guaranteeing national cohesion.”

For Ms. Assaf, who was a member of the special commission established in 2012 by the Prime Minister for the elaboration of the administrative decentralization bill, “decentralization constitutes an essential step on the path of progress.” “It is a pragmatic tool to strengthen the state, improve governance, and bring decision-making closer to citizens,” she specifies.

If one were to speak of a “miracle” in Lebanese politics, she adds, it could be identified in the part of the Taif Agreement relating to decentralization. In a context where parties struggle to agree on structural reforms, reaching a compromise on this point constitutes a historical event. At the time, some factions were in favor of decentralization, while others opposed it. Despite these divergences, an agreement was reached, enshrining decentralization as a fundamental reform.

Taif and the implementation deadlock

After the Taif Agreement and until President Michel Sleiman's mandate, no concrete bill on decentralization was adopted. The available texts were more about deconcentration than decentralization itself. Ms. Assaf insists on this distinction: « Deconcentration consists of representing the central state administrations in the regions, without transferring real powers. Decentralization, on the other hand, involves councils elected directly by citizens, with their own competencies and real administrative and financial autonomy. »

Some initiatives, such as the bill presented by the late MP Robert Ghanem, were described as decentralization, but they did not provide for the election of local councils. However, the absence of elections goes against the very spirit of decentralization. Today, Lebanon has a first degree of decentralization through municipalities. These entities have powers, but they lack adequate financial means to exercise them fully. The example of some of them, endowed with considerable financial resources, contrasts sharply with other less favored municipalities.

The role of decentralization

Decentralization allows for the creation of genuine democratic control. According to Ms. Assaf, “thanks to decentralization, citizens become more capable of holding to account and controlling public action.” The reform in question also helps to better identify regional needs, reduce congestion, create local employment opportunities, foster regional development, and mitigate political disputes.

However, these benefits cannot be achieved without a strong central authority capable of guaranteeing the coherence and unity of the state. Decentralization is not a means to weaken the state, but a tool to strengthen governance and improve the effectiveness of public action. For Ms. Assaf, decentralization could play a catalytic role in accountability at the national level.

Chronology of initiatives

In accordance with the Taif Agreement, during the presidential mandate 2008-2014, at the initiative of the President of the Republic and in agreement with the Prime Minister, a committee chaired by former minister Ziad Baroud was created in 2012 to draft a decentralization bill. This committee brought together experts and specialists from several fields, as decentralization involves administrative, financial, political, cultural, social aspects, etc.

In 2014, the final draft was endorsed by the presidency. It respects the Taif Agreement and includes advanced standards for local governance. In 2015, a dialogue conference supported the principle of decentralization. MP Samy Gemayel then took up this project and presented it as a bill to Parliament. Since then, the text has been examined by parliamentary committees without being adopted. Ms. Assaf emphasizes that its approval depends on a political will that is still lacking. She adds that decentralization is a technical reform and that it would be illogical, even absurd, to link its approval to the implementation of other eminently political reforms, such as the establishment of a Senate or the abolition of sectarianism, which will require years of effort.

Financial autonomy and regional balance

According to Ms. Assaf, in application of the principle 'transfer of powers, transfer of resources,' decentralization cannot be achieved without financial resources. The term “financial decentralization” is often misused in Lebanon, she explains. According to her, decentralization is based on two inseparable pillars: administrative autonomy and financial autonomy. The project advocates for the allocation of financial resources to elected local councils (for example, a share of income tax and property tax collected at the caza level, etc.). It also provides for the creation of a decentralized fund, which will replace the current autonomous municipal fund. This new fund aims to ensure balanced development and reduce inequalities between regions, based on indicators of development status, annual tax collection, census of the population registered in the community, and the area of the caza.

Decentralization allows citizens to elect local officials capable of effectively managing the resources of their caza. It helps to limit clientelism and feudalism, while establishing a culture of accountability.

It should be noted that the historical and institutional framework highlights the fact that decentralization in Lebanon is both a democratic imperative and a lever for institutional resilience. The chronology of initiatives reveals a constant political will on paper, but hindered by partisan interests and lack of consensus. The effective adoption of this reform would be a major test for the political class.