Muslim World Report

Authoritarianism and Violence in Lebanon: A Complex Relationship

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Jun 22, 2025 9:23 AM | 7 min read | 1413 words

TL;DR: A recent study in the Psychology of Violence journal explores the complex dynamics between authoritarianism and social dominance in Lebanon, revealing how these ideological beliefs influence support for political violence. Understanding these interactions is essential for addressing Lebanon’s ongoing political violence and instability.

Understanding the Dynamics of Political Violence in Lebanon

A recent study published in the Psychology of Violence journal offers crucial insights into the relationship between ideological beliefs and political violence in Lebanon. This research meticulously unpacks the attitudes of individuals in a nation marked by prolonged sectarian strife and political turmoil, distinguishing between two predominant belief systems: authoritarianism and social dominance.

Authoritarianism is characterized by a preference for social conformity, obedience, and order, often at the expense of individual freedoms and dissent. In contrast, social dominance prioritizes power over outgroup members, frequently endorsing violence as a means to achieve and maintain that power (Pratto et al., 2013). The implications of these findings are far-reaching, suggesting that political violence in Lebanon is not merely a product of economic or social deprivation but is also deeply embedded in the prevailing ideological context. Such dynamics echo the findings of Ikenberry and Snyder (2000), who argue that democratization efforts often exacerbate nationalist conflicts when foundational conditions for effective governance are absent.

Key Findings:

  • Authoritarian Views: Individuals aligned with authoritarian views typically demonstrate:

    • Less support for violence against political leaders
    • A preference for stability and adherence to established norms

  • Social Dominance Views: Those motivated by social dominance are more likely to:

    • Advocate for violence against outgroups
    • Reflect a desire to reinforce their group’s superiority (Haniffa & Cooke, 2002)

This distinction holds significant implications for Lebanon’s internal stability and broader geopolitical dynamics in a region characterized by imperial interventions and sociopolitical fragmentation.

Lebanon’s geopolitical position has historically made it a battleground for larger regional conflicts and power struggles. The interplay between authoritarianism, social dominance, and the prevailing political order presents critical challenges for policymakers, scholars, and citizens alike. As Lebanon grapples with economic collapse, rising sectarian tensions, and external pressures, comprehending the ideological roots of violence and conflict becomes essential for crafting effective responses that transcend mere political rhetoric (Jamali, 2009).

What If Authoritarianism Gains Ground?

Should authoritarian attitudes become more entrenched in Lebanon, the implications for political violence could be profound:

  • A consolidation of authoritarian beliefs may lead to:
    • Increased acceptance of repressive governance structures
    • Undermining opportunities for democratic engagement

Individuals adhering to authoritarian ideologies tend to prioritize social order and conformity over dissent and political activism, stifling critical voices and diminishing civic engagement (Svolik, 2009). This stagnation could trap Lebanon in a cycle of oppression, reminiscent of the dynamics observed in other transitional democracies like Nigeria and Algeria, where failure to address grievances has catalyzed renewed violence (Ukiwo, 2003; Volpi, 2004).

In an authoritarian context, the government might increasingly rely on state security apparatuses to quash dissent, leading to:

  • Escalation in state-sponsored violence: Suppression of opposition could be framed as necessary to maintain stability, targeting not only radical groups but potentially any dissenting voices.

This approach could provoke a backlash, as marginalized communities may feel compelled to resort to violence as a form of resistance, further entrenching a cycle of repression and retaliation (Mamdani, 2002).

Moreover, a strong authoritarian shift could alienate international partners and donors, who often prioritize stability over human rights. Such a move could trigger:

  • Diplomatic isolation
  • Economic repercussions, weakening Lebanon’s international standing and prospects for recovery.

A society increasingly characterized by authoritarian governance risks devolving into a battleground of competing interests, where factions vie for power and legitimacy, potentially drawing in external actors and complicating the political landscape further (Alam Rizvi, 2012).

The entrenchment of authoritarianism would likely lead to:

  • A chilling effect on activism and dissent
  • Citizens becoming fearful to express opposition, leading to a culture of silence that stifles public discourse
  • A fertile ground for radical ideologies to take root, as grievances go unaddressed

What If Social Dominance Prevails?

Conversely, should social dominance ideologies come to the fore in Lebanon, the results could be equally troubling but manifest in different ways:

  • A society that embraces a social dominance framework may witness:
    • An escalation in sectarian violence
    • A normalization of aggressive behaviors towards perceived outgroups

Individuals motivated by social dominance are predisposed to view conflict as a necessary means to assert their group’s superiority, justifying violence as a legitimate tactic for maintaining power and status (Pratto et al., 2013).

In this scenario, we could see:

  • An increase in violent clashes between various political and sectarian groups
  • Competing factions attempting to reinforce their dominance over one another

The Lebanese landscape, already rife with sectarian divides, may erupt into more frequent and brutal confrontations, leading to casualties and displacement. This burden would disproportionately affect marginalized communities, reinforcing cycles of poverty and disenfranchisement, which may, in turn, fuel further conflict.

The ramifications of a dominant social dominance ideology would not remain confined to Lebanon’s borders. As the situation deteriorates, neighboring countries could be drawn into the conflict through:

  • Refugee flows
  • Spillover violence
  • The involvement of external powers claiming to intervene for humanitarian reasons

Historical precedents, such as the Syrian civil war, highlight how such domestic tensions can quickly escalate into broader regional conflicts, complicating international relations and humanitarian responses (Galal, 2013).

The rise of social dominance could also provoke an escalation in sectarian rhetoric and the consolidation of sectarian alliances, preventing the emergence of broader coalitions that might promote peace and unity. This fragmentation presents a critical challenge for Lebanon’s future stability, particularly as external powers may exploit these divisions for their strategic interests, thereby complicating the diplomatic landscape further.

Strategic Maneuvers for All Players Involved

Given the complex interplay of ideological beliefs and their implications for political violence in Lebanon, it is crucial for all stakeholders to navigate this landscape with strategic foresight. For the Lebanese government, fostering an environment that encourages dialogue and inclusivity is paramount. Policymakers should prioritize:

  • Economic reforms that alleviate poverty and inequality
  • Addressing the underlying grievances that fuel both authoritarianism and social dominance ideologies (Costello et al., 2021)

Strengthening democratic institutions and promoting civil society engagement can cultivate a sense of ownership and empowerment among the populace, as suggested by the experiences in various transitional democracies (Linz & Stepan, 1996).

International actors must recognize the nuances of Lebanese society. Rather than imposing blanket solutions, external players—including regional powers and Western nations—should engage in nuanced diplomacy that acknowledges the complex socio-political realities on the ground. Supporting grassroots movements that advocate for pluralism and coexistence can counteract the rise of authoritarianism and social dominance (Cawthra & Luckman, 2004).

Civil society organizations have a critical role to play by working to:

  • Bridge divides
  • Foster intergroup dialogues, emphasizing shared interests rather than sectarian differences

Educational initiatives that promote critical thinking and empathy can help counteract extremist narratives and build a more cohesive society (Kandiyoti, 2007).

Additionally, academic institutions should contribute by:

  • Conducting further research into the ideological roots of conflict in Lebanon
  • Encouraging interdisciplinary analyses that inform both local and international strategies

By deepening the understanding of political violence’s causes, Lebanon can better navigate its challenges, fostering a society that values peace over domination and stability over oppression.

References

Alam Rizvi, M. M. (2012). Evaluating the Political and Economic Role of the IRGC. Strategic Analysis, 36(2), 285-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2012.689528

Cawthra, C., & Luckman, R. (2004). Governing insecurity: democratic control of military and security establishments in transitional democracies. Choice Reviews Online, 41(4292). https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.41-4292

Costello, T. H., Bowes, S. M., Stevens, S. T., Waldman, I. D., Tasimi, A., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2021). Clarifying the structure and nature of left-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(3), 600-619. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000341

Galal, S. (Ed.). (2013). The Consequences of Negotiated Settlements in Civil Wars, 1945–1993. American Political Science Review, 89(1), 377-392. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082982

Jamali, D. (2009). Constraints and opportunities facing women entrepreneurs in developing countries. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 24(1), 23-39. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542410910961532

Kandiyoti, D. (2007). Beyond the hammer and the anvil: post-conflict reconstruction, Islam, and women’s rights. Third World Quarterly, 28(3), 689-706. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590701192603

Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. (1996). Toward consolidated democracies. Journal of Democracy, 7(2), 14-33. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1996.0031

Pratto, F., Çidam, A., & Stewart, A. L. (2013). Social Dominance in Context and in Individuals. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(2), 208-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612473663

Ukiwo, U. (2003). Politics, ethno-religious conflicts, and democratic consolidation in Nigeria. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 41(1), 17-38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022278X02004172

Ikenberry, G. J., & Snyder, J. (2000). From voting to violence: democratization and nationalist conflict. Foreign Affairs, 79(2), 90-106. https://doi.org/10.2307/20049749

← Prev Next →