History of technocracy: Can Lebanon's leaders accept a true technocratic government?

Report by Nada Andraos, English adaptation by Yasmine Jaroudi  

Since Lebanon's independence, the country has seen 11 technocratic governments—nine before the Taif Agreement and two after. 

However, most so-called technocratic governments included ministers who were handpicked by party leaders or sectarian figures while not officially affiliated with political parties. These ministers often served as a convenient shield for political leaders when things were running smoothly but were also used as tools for obstruction when needed.  

Lebanon has witnessed various forms of political maneuvering under the guise of technocracy, from so-called "king ministers" to boycotting parliamentary sessions and obstructing the quorum to paralyze governance.  

One of the rare examples of a government that embodied true technocratic principles was the cabinet formed at the start of President Fouad Chehab's tenure in 1958, led by Prime Minister Rashid Karami. This government was dominated by professionals and experts rather than traditional politicians, aiming to implement administrative and developmental reforms that defined the Chehabist era. 

Ministers from various sects, chosen for their competence rather than political allegiances, left a lasting impact on the country's institutions. 

Figures like Philippe Takla, Edward Hunayn, Hassan Mcharafieh, and Ahmad Al-Arabi are still remembered for their contributions to state-building, free from sectarian or party constraints. Their legacy remains tied to the vision of President Chehab, who sought to establish a modern, institutional state governed by the rule of law and an independent judiciary.  

Now, with consultations underway for the formation of a government under Prime Minister-designate Nawaf Salam, discussions about a new technocratic administration have resurfaced. 

The question remains whether Lebanon's current political class is ready to embrace a cabinet of independent professionals—one that prioritizes institutional integrity, aligns with global developments, and refuses to be a tool for any leader, sect, or party. 

Are today's leaders truly capable of shouldering such a responsibility?