Abstract
Despite its consociationalism and clientelism, in 2018 civil society groups hoped to gain a real foothold in Lebanon’s parliament in light of recent social mobilization, local election results, and the introduction of proportional electoral rules. Contributing to the literature on power-sharing, this paper analyzes why civil society groups were so hopeful and why they only won a single seat. While confessional parties shaped electoral rules to their advantage and deployed their powers of clientelism, there are signs of the same deeply rooted informal norms and practices that promote status quo elections in other consociational cases despite broad public disaffection with governance.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
