The Making Of Modern Lebanon Case Study

In the summer of 2015 Beirut’s streets were, literally, flooding with trash. It had been mounting since the contract between the government and Sukleen, a private company which had exclusive rights for garbage collection, had expired on 17 July 2015. Moreover, since 1997 garbage from Beirut and Mount Lebanon had been transported to Na’ameh, originally as a temporary measure. Since 2014, the residents of Na’ameh had been demanding for the closing of the dumpsite. Since no progress had been made, in the summer of 2015 they blocked the access to the dumpsite, which intensified the trash crisis in Beirut (Nayel, 2015).

A group named YouStink emerged and called for a solution to the trash problem. Soon other actors joined with various demands, expanding the movement from dealing with the trash crisis to criticising the elite for failing the citizens. This social

She goes as far as to claim that ‘[i]deological parties, press etc. come and go, sects and the politics of the sects live on for ever’ (11). The history of modern Lebanon is indeed without a doubt full of sectarianism. Even the constitution of 1926 divides positions in the Lebanese administration based on sects, and that even though this was supposed to be a temporary solution, it has persisted until today with only some modifications.

Cobban understands the economic inequalities created in Lebanon to an extent, but even then she sees sectarianism as more important. For Cobban, changes in Lebanon can mostly be reduced to differences in balance of the sects. Thus, while sectarianism has played an important role in the history of Lebanon, and the context in which Harak operated cannot be completely understood without it, Cobban, however, overemphasises it. As Traboulsi (2007) argues, the modern history of Lebanon is best approached from the socio-economic point of