Commitment to the “National” in Post-Conflict Countries: Public and Private Security Provision in Lebanon

Abstract

A core function of contemporary states is to ensure the security of their citizens. Yet in many post-conflict settings, non-state actors provide security alongside the state, typically prioritizing their own ascriptive groups and potentially undercutting a sense of national political community. When do citizens prefer group-specific versus national security? While most studies focus on individual psychological factors, we argue that group-level characteristics also shape political preferences. Based on a conjoint experiment in Lebanon, we explore the relative appeal of group-specific versus national pledges to assure protection. We find that respondents view national security provision quite positively, while members of communities with stronger group-specific security simultaneously favor private provision. Individuals with closer ties to credible group security providers are also more likely to prefer those services. Citizens therefore do not see a clear trade-off between private and public protection, while group-specific legacies mediate heterogeneity in support for pluralist security provision.

Democratic commitment in the Middle East: a conjoint analysis

“…Blaydes et al (2021) studied Qatari attitudes toward women working. Cammett et al (2022b) consider security policy preferences in Lebanon, and Cammett et al (2022a) address the role of ethnicity in attitudes toward clientelism in Lebanon. Shamir and Shamir (1995) applied a conjoint to a study of democratic commitment in Israel.…”