Written by Bassam Gergi
Recent reports in Lebanese media have shed light on ongoing discussions involving the Lebanese presidency and Hezbollah, with the president himself confirming that talks are indeed being conducted with the group. Among the more controversial aspects of these discussions is the rumored proposal to integrate Hezbollah into the Lebanese Army. These developments have reignited debate about the structural and sectarian imbalances in Lebanon’s current political and military systems and have elevated federalism as a promising alternative model that may offer stability, inclusivity, and security for Lebanon’s diverse society.
Sectarian Imbalance in the Lebanese Armed Forces
A glaring issue within the Lebanese Army today is the sectarian imbalance, particularly among the rank-and-file combat units. Reports suggest that Christians make up as little as 1% of these units, an alarming figure in a country where the political system is based on sectarian power-sharing. This underrepresentation undermines the national character of the army and diminishes trust in its role as a unifying institution.
The imbalance is even more stark within the officer corps. While official statistics may suggest a nominal parity—approximately a 50-50 split between Christian and Muslim officers—the reality is far more complex. A significant number of Christian officers are women who are often relegated to administrative or support roles, rarely participating in combat or commanding fighting units. This has left a vacuum in leadership positions that traditionally symbolized the Christian presence and influence in national defense.
Adding to these structural problems is the Syrian-era legacy that left the Lebanese Army top-heavy, with an inflated number of generals in comparison to enlisted soldiers. This bloated hierarchy hampers operational efficiency and reflects outdated systems that serve political patronage more than military effectiveness.
Hezbollah’s Potential Integration: A Dangerous Precedent
Integrating Hezbollah—a powerful Shia militia that operates with its own military command structure and ideology rooted in Iran’s doctrine of Wilayat al-Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist)—into the Lebanese Army would have profound consequences. Such a move would not only institutionalize a non-state actor with a religious and political agenda but also inject an exclusive ideological strain into a national institution meant to be apolitical and representative.
The consequences could be far-reaching. The integration of a Shia Islamist force could provoke reactive extremism among other sectarian groups, particularly Sunnis, who may feel compelled to reassert their identity through groups like ISIS or the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan). The fragile balance of Lebanon’s sectarian mosaic would be severely disrupted, potentially leading to more fragmentation rather than national unity.
Federalism: A Solution Grounded in Representation and Security
This is where federalism presents itself not only as a political restructuring solution but as a security imperative. A federal Lebanon would allow for both national and state-level security forces, creating a two-tiered system that respects local demographics while preserving the integrity of the national military.
Under a federal system:
• The Federal Lebanese Army would be representative of all sectarian and ethnic groups, ensuring national legitimacy and collective defense.
• State-level military or police units could be composed predominantly of local communities, giving people a greater sense of ownership and representation in their own security.
Such a structure would allow Lebanon to address sectarian concerns more organically. For example, Christian-majority states could encourage local enlistment, rebalancing representation without imposing quotas at the national level. Meanwhile, local state units would still adhere to federal military doctrine, training standards, and equipment guidelines, preserving cohesion and professionalism across the board.
What Should Be Done Now?
Instead of pursuing dangerous integration efforts that could dissolve the last standing symbol of national unity—the Lebanese Army—the country should prioritize:
• Initiating a national dialogue on federalism, involving political, civil society, and religious leaders to chart a new, more representative future.
• Preserving the integrity of the Lebanese Army, while launching recruitment campaigns to encourage Christian youth to rejoin, especially in officer training programs.
• Reforming the military hierarchy to reduce the number of generals and refocus leadership on operational readiness rather than political prestige.
• Creating state-level police or national guard units under a federal framework, ensuring that every region is able to maintain security while remaining integrated within a national defense doctrine.
Conclusion
Lebanon stands at a crossroads. Talks of integrating Hezbollah into the Lebanese Army may seem pragmatic to some, but the long-term risks far outweigh any short-term political gains. Federalism offers a more sustainable and equitable solution—one that can stabilize the country by recognizing its diversity, restoring balance to its institutions, and securing its future through inclusive and locally grounded security structures. Now is the time to shift the conversation from integration to transformation
