Lebanon distributes its top government posts permanently among its major religious communities. Critically examine this power-sharing arrangement: does permanently fixing offices by religion strengthen or weaken democratic principles? Support your answer with a reasoned argument.
Generated by claude-sonnet-4-6 · 2026-06-26 13:16 · grounding rag
Model Answer
Lebanon's system of permanently fixing top government posts by religion weakens democratic principles, though it was designed to ensure peace.
Arguments against:
- It violates the democratic principle of equal opportunity — a capable person like Khalil cannot become President regardless of merit or public support.
- Permanently fixing offices by religion institutionalises communalism, making religion the basis of political identity rather than individual choice.
- Since Muslim population is now a clear majority, the arrangement no longer reflects actual representation.
However, elders argue it prevents communal violence by guaranteeing every community a share in power — a short-term compromise for stability.
Overall, permanent religion-based allocation contradicts democracy's core idea that power should be distributed based on citizens' will, not fixed religious identity.
Source: Chapter 1 (Khalil's dilemma); Chapter 3 (Communalism)
---
Explanation
- The examiner expects you to take a clear position and support it with reasoning from the passage.
- Key points: Khalil's argument (merit/elections), the elders' argument (peace), and why permanently fixing offices differs from temporary power-sharing arrangements.
- Mentioning that the Muslim majority is now ignored adds analytical depth and scores well.
- Avoid simply describing the Lebanese system — the question says "critically examine," so evaluation is essential.