In societies that are predominantly sectarian, factional, and regional, political groups do not need official repressive apparatuses to produce silence. Often, it is enough for dissent to become a social risk for silence to become a rational choice for many.
This is what can be observed in several closed political environments, but it acquires an additional particularity within groups that have gone through long experiences of conflict, siege and wars, and that have become saturated with certain ideologies, where the boundaries between the political and existential affiliation of the group itself overlap.
In the case of the Lebanese Shia community, the difficulty of expressing positions contrary to the prevailing sentiment, particularly that of Hezbollah, cannot be understood without revisiting the historical context in which the community’s contemporary political identity was formed. This community endured decades of political and social marginalization, followed by an unprecedented period of political and military ascendancy, before entering a highly complex phase in recent years as a result of successive wars, regional transformations, internal and external pressures, and strategic choices that transcend national borders.
In such circumstances, preserving the singular narrative becomes a priority that takes precedence over critical discussions for decision-makers, and dissent becomes subject to interpretation as a threat to the group rather than a mere difference of opinion.
In normal societies, political disagreement is seen as part of public life. But in groups that live with a constant sense of threat, the boundaries between the political and the existential fade away. Disagreement over a particular political choice is no longer just a discussion about public policies, but turns into a question about loyalty, belonging, and alignment.
Therefore, dominant groups deliberately raise and constantly re-emphasize the existential threat, in order to prevent the growth of individual and collective opposition and questions about the validity of wrong political choices.
For decades, the Shia community in Lebanon has suffered the consequences of political and military choices that have often disregarded its members’ national aspirations and direct interests. The Israeli war on Lebanon, now in its second year, is perhaps the latest manifestation of this trajectory. Many believe it stems from Hezbollah’s decision to embroil the country in the region’s conflicts and complex entanglements. The Shia in the south, the Bekaa Valley, and the southern suburbs of Beirut in particular, and the Lebanese in general, have borne the brunt of these choices, from thousands of casualties to widespread destruction affecting dozens of villages and the occupation of parts of them, all while no clear path to a solution remains in sight.
In parallel with the magnitude of the disaster, this crisis did not provide an opportunity to develop a Shiite political alternative that adopts a critical approach to the existing experience. On the contrary, a number of Shiite political and media activists were subjected to attacks, harassment, and social ostracism campaigns because of their opposition positions.
What is more dangerous is that these practices have, to varying degrees, been met with some acceptance or tolerance within the Shiite community, including circles classified as moderate, as many preferred to remain silent or refrain from public solidarity for fear of being subjected to social isolation, accusation, or betrayal.
Herein lies one of the most significant mechanisms for generating fear of difference. In such an environment and under current circumstances, individuals often fear not only disagreeing with a prevailing opinion, but also being interpreted as leaving the group itself. This dynamic intensifies with the escalation of crises and wars, as groups tend to seek unity and cohesion in the face of external threats, thus narrowing the space for internal debate.
From a political sociology perspective, this phenomenon is one of the natural consequences of what is known as the “siege mentality,” where the group sees itself as being targeted from the outside, and thus becomes more sensitive to any internal criticism that could be interpreted as weakening the home front.
It is not necessary for someone with a dissenting opinion to be subjected to direct persecution in order to hesitate in expressing his position. In socially cohesive societies, the family, the village, and networks of personal relationships play a fundamental role in organizing political behavior and setting the boundaries of what is acceptable and unacceptable. This is clearly applicable to the Shiite environment in Lebanon, where political considerations overlap with family, social, and religious ties, making the position on Hezbollah go beyond being a political choice, to become, for a wide segment of people, part of the collective affiliation and shared identity.
Over time, these mechanisms produce a kind of self-censorship, as individuals automatically learn to define what can and cannot be said within the public sphere. Instead of needing to enforce silence by force, an awareness of social boundaries becomes sufficient to regulate discourse. In the case of Hezbollah, the symbolic status the party acquired within a large segment of the Shiite community, as a resistance force and protector of the community at certain times, has contributed to raising the social cost of criticizing it, even for individuals who do not agree with all of its choices.
Despite the image that suggests there is complete consensus within the Shiite environment, the reality is much more complex, as there are wide variations in visions, positions and political assessments, like any other human group.
However, the problem lies in the fact that a large part of these differences remains confined to private circles. Many opinions are expressed inside homes, among friends, or in closed sessions, and do not move into the public sphere, which produces what can be called “silent pluralism”.
The Shiite arena witnessed a clear emergence of some voices opposed to the party’s recent military adventures, which objected to its practices, but the network of primary relationships within families and villages was quickly able to contain and hide these voices.
With these voices absent from the public sphere, a misleading impression of absolute consensus is formed, and this imagined consensus then becomes an additional tool for putting pressure on individuals, because every person with a different opinion believes that he is an isolated minority, while others believe the same thing.
Social media contributes to deepening this phenomenon, as it gives preference to the loudest and most organized voices, and Hezbollah has the virtual capabilities necessary to achieve this, which leads to amplifying the image of homogeneity and concealing the actual diversity that exists within the group.
Fear of difference may succeed in producing temporary cohesion, but it comes at a high long-term cost. Groups that lose their ability to self-criticize gradually lose their ability to correct their mistakes, and when difficult questions become taboo, the potential for review, learning, and development diminishes.
This has an impact not only on the community itself, but also on the Lebanese state as a whole. Building a stable state requires not only political agreements, but also safe spaces for discussion and disagreement within the various social and sectarian components. Societies that cannot freely discuss their choices become incapable of developing or modifying those choices when circumstances change.
This highlights the need for the state to be present in encouraging and enabling groups to develop and expand areas of public debate at multiple levels.
It is the duty of the Ministry of Culture to support the emergence of independent cultural clubs and forums outside the framework of traditional political parties, thereby enabling the creation of inclusive national spaces that embrace intellectual pluralism and encourage critical dialogue. Similarly, the Ministry of Education has a fundamental role in guaranteeing the right of students at the Lebanese University and private universities to establish diverse cultural and intellectual clubs capable of framing different ideas and visions, and contributing to the formation of a democratic student environment that fosters a culture of participation and prepares individuals to engage in public decision-making rationally and responsibly in the future.
In addition, the state bears the responsibility of providing the necessary security protection for cultural gatherings, clubs and forums, in a way that guarantees their freedom of operation and continuity, and prevents any party from using intimidation or coercion to restrict participation in them.
The absence of security guarantees not only threatens individuals, but also the public sphere itself, by creating a climate of fear that pushes citizens to refrain from exercising their right to expression, organization and participation, something that Hezbollah has succeeded in achieving for a long time by spreading caution in the circles that have opposed it culturally, politically and electorally.
Given the limited scope for dialogue and the difficulty of producing a clear political discourse that discusses and contradicts Hezbollah’s choices, the importance of finding alternative paths within the Shiite opposition community becomes apparent, in order to dedicate and deepen discussions, and produce political visions that have direct answers to the questions of the “Shiite environment” and the “Hezbollah” public in particular, so that they can later reach the decision-making position within the sect and correct its outcomes.
Independent and secular parties, as well as the networks and groups that emerged in the wake of the wave of protests in Lebanon, have a key role to play in attracting individuals willing to engage in alternative political frameworks within environments dominated by traditional powers, including areas where the Shiite duo enjoys broad influence.
This role is not limited to absorbing individuals, but extends to framing them within clear organizational and political structures, allowing their individual experiences and local issues to be transformed into an organized collective energy capable of influencing the public sphere. The presence of individuals outside organizational frameworks limits their ability to engage in sustainable political action, while party and institutional work allows for the accumulation of experiences and the formulation and defense of demands in a more effective and continuous manner.