Who Writes the Rules of the Street? 

It was a bright morning in Baabda, one of those mornings when the road out of Beirut seems to climb not only into the hills, but into a quieter version of the country. I had gone there looking for a patch of green where the dog could run. I parked on a public street, in front of a private house. There was no sign, no painted curb, no municipal marking, no obstruction, and no visible rule. 

When I returned, a handwritten note was waiting under the windshield wiper. It was polite, firm, and unsigned. The house behind the wall was private property, it said, and I should not park there again. 

There was no reference to municipal authority, no legal citation, no official insignia. Only an assertion. Yet the expectation of obedience was unmistakable. 

The note was not aggressive. It was not even particularly surprising. That is precisely why it matters. 

What appeared at first to be a small neighborhood irritation was, in miniature, a civic scene. A private citizen had quietly assumed a public function: the power to decide what is permitted on a public street. No common rule was explained. No public authority was invoked. The claim rested only on proximity: because the street was in front of the house, it somehow became an extension of the house. 

But the curb does not belong to the nearest resident simply because it is convenient. Proximity is not authority. 

Public space, private enforcement 

In a public order that works, restrictions are visible, general, and legitimate. A no-parking zone, a loading area, a security perimeter, or a reserved space must be decided by a competent authority and communicated as such. The rule does not derive its force from the confidence of the person demanding compliance, but from the procedure through which it was created. 

That is the difference between authority and assertion. 

This is not the story of one unreasonable neighbor. It is about what happens when people stop expecting lawful authority to regulate common life. In that vacuum, rules do not disappear. They are rewritten by whoever is closest, strongest, best connected, most confident, or most willing to create friction. 

Across many neighborhoods, stretches of public space are treated as extensions of adjacent homes, shops, garages, offices, or local interests. Chairs, cones, chains, flowerpots, plastic barriers, and handwritten warnings become instruments of informal regulation. Drivers comply not necessarily because they recognize a legal duty, but because challenging the claim may entail argument, delay, retaliation, or entry into a local dispute whose limits are unclear.  

At times, the same logic works in reverse: unidentified individuals collect informal parking fees, and many drivers pay not because the charge is legitimate, but for the same reason they obey an informal prohibition – to avoid friction. 

The rule is obeyed, but its source is not the state. 

Why people comply 

Outsiders sometimes misread this compliance as cultural acceptance, indifference, or endorsement. It is often better understood as risk management. A rational person may decide that contesting an informal prohibition is simply not worth the cost. Convenience reinforces repetition; repetition produces expectation; expectation begins to resemble legitimacy. 

Over time, the extraordinary becomes routine. 

Lebanon’s crisis of citizenship is often discussed through its most dramatic symbols: the financial collapse, the failure of basic services, the obstruction of justice, the fragmentation of public authority, and the presence of actors that operate both within and beyond the state. These are essential parts of the picture. But the crisis is also visible in smaller moments: when the public street ceases to feel public, when the sidewalk becomes an extension of a shop, when the queue no longer belongs to everyone, or when a citizen no longer knows whether law, influence, money, fear, or courtesy will decide what happens next. 

Citizenship is not only a passport, a vote, or a chapter in a schoolbook. It is a daily relationship with a shared world. It means that the street, the school, the court, the hospital, the municipality, the port, the beach, and the sidewalk are governed by rules that apply beyond private interest. It also means trusting that those rules are made by a legitimate authority and enforced with a minimum of fairness. 

Where that trust collapses, citizenship becomes thin. People may still belong to the country, but they stop relying on the state as the organiser of collective life. They turn instead to family, sect, party, broker, employer, municipality, private provider, local notable, personal initiative, or whoever can solve the immediate problem. 

The result is not an absence of authority. It is an excess of competing authorities. 

Alongside the visible architecture of the state, another operating system regulates daily life: reputation, networks, social weight, familiarity, and the perceived ability to create or avoid trouble. In that system, effectiveness often outweighs legality. If someone can make a rule stick, then, in practice, it becomes a rule. 

This is one of Lebanon’s deepest civic wounds. Authority has not simply vanished; it has dispersed. It appears in the broker who can accelerate a file, the local figure who can mediate a dispute, the private provider who determines access to an essential service, the political network that distributes protection, and the residents who write parking rules on a windshield. 

Militias are the most visible example of this hybrid order, but they are not the whole story. Lebanon’s public life is shaped by a wider constellation of sectarian parties, clientelist networks, municipal weakness, family influence, private service providers, informal brokers, and ordinary citizens who have learned to improvise where institutions fail. 

Such improvisation is understandable. It is also corrosive. A society cannot live indefinitely on private solutions to public problems. When water, electricity, security, permits, parking, schooling, healthcare, and justice are negotiated through informal channels, the idea of a common public order weakens. Citizens become clients, rivals, petitioners, or self-defenders. The public realm becomes something to be captured before someone else captures it first. 

The consequence is not anarchy. Often, it is a dense order – but not a public one. Instead of impersonal regulation, there is a negotiated hierarchy. Instead of equality before the law, there is differentiated treatment depending on who is involved. Predictability gives way to familiarity; rights give way to relationships. 

This is why reform cannot be understood only as a matter of laws, agreements, institutional charts, or technical capacity. Lebanon does need judicial independence, banking reform, public administration reform, accountable security institutions, and credible public services. But formal reform will remain fragile if it does not also rebuild the everyday experience of legitimate authority. 

New laws can be drafted. Procedures can be modernised. Training programs can be implemented. Yet implementation encounters an environment in which citizens are accustomed to navigating through personalised arrangements. If people believe that influence can override rules, or that the absence of influence leaves them exposed to someone else’s informal authority, they will organize their lives accordingly. 

Reform is therefore not only a matter of capacity. It is also a matter of civic belief: where do people think real power resides? 

A citizen should not need a patron to access a right. A resident should not need to negotiate personally over public space. A shopkeeper should not be able to annex the sidewalk by habit. A party should not be more reliable than a ministry. A private provider should not become the real regulator of essential life. A court should not be treated as one actor among many in a political marketplace. A municipality should not be present only on paper. 

For diplomats, donors, development agencies, and security practitioners, debates on Lebanon often focus on constitutional balances, macroeconomic stabilization, border security, weapons, or institutional reform. These are indispensable questions. But they can obscure the everyday theatre in which legitimacy is continuously renegotiated. 

A handwritten note on a windshield may reveal more about lived governance than a formal policy document. It shows whether people expect rules to come from institutions or personalities. It indicates whether public goods are genuinely collective or informally appropriated. And it exposes the practical boundaries of the state’s authority. 

This phenomenon is not uniquely Lebanese, nor is it culturally predetermined. Informal control over public space exists in many countries. Where enforcement is uneven and social ties are strong, people improvise mechanisms of order. What differs is scale, tolerance, and normalisation. 

When such practices become ordinary, they gradually redefine citizenship itself. Belonging depends less on equal access to law and more on one’s position within webs of protection, familiarity, and influence. 

The recovery of Lebanese citizenship must therefore begin both at the centre and at the margins. It begins in parliament, in the judiciary, in the central bank, and in ministries. But it also begins in municipalities, streets, schools, neighbourhoods, queues, roads, beaches, and sidewalks. It begins wherever people learn, through repeated experience, whether the public realm belongs to all or only to those able to claim it. 

Municipal authority is especially important here. It is easy to speak about sovereignty in grand terms. But sovereignty is also a painted curb, a working streetlight, a clear sign, a fair fine, a transparent permit, a maintained sidewalk, and a local official who can enforce rules without fear or favoritism. These are not minor administrative details. They are the grammar of common life. 

Civil society also has a role to play, not by replacing the state, but by defending the idea that public space is a common good. Neighborhood groups, civic organizations, professional associations, educators, journalists, and local initiatives can help make visible what has become normalized. They can document abuses, demand transparent municipal decisions, defend access to shared spaces, and remind citizens that rights are not favours. 

Citizenship is not rebuilt only by teaching people what the Constitution says. It is rebuilt when people repeatedly and concretely experience that rules apply beyond private power. 

For Lebanon, rebuilding the state does not mean imposing a cold bureaucracy over a living society. It means recovering the possibility that people can share space without having to privatize it defensively. It means creating institutions strong enough to prevent the powerful from writing their own rules, and legitimate enough that ordinary citizens do not feel abandoned when they obey them. 

Strengthening institutions, therefore, is not solely about expanding budgets or rewriting statutes. It involves reclaiming impersonality: restoring confidence that public procedures will prevail over private assertion. Citizens must believe that if a restriction exists, it is because a legitimate authority decided it; and that if no restriction exists, no individual may invent one. 

This is a demanding expectation. It requires visible enforcement, political backing, municipal competence, and civic courage. It may generate conflict with entrenched habits. But without it, public space remains vulnerable to continuous appropriation. 

The note under the windshield was small, courteous, and almost forgettable. Nothing dramatic followed. I drove away. The neighbor kept the curb. Life continued. 

Yet the meaning of the exchange lingers. It showed how easily authority can detach from legality and attach itself to presence, confidence, and perceived strength. It showed how citizens adapt to this environment through pragmatic obedience. And it clarified why institutional reforms, however well designed, struggle when daily behaviour continues to teach people that real power lies elsewhere. 

Lebanon’s future will not be decided only in negotiations over presidents, cabinets, banks, borders, or weapons. It will also be decided in the ordinary places where people discover whether they are citizens of a shared republic or inhabitants of adjacent private worlds. 

The rule of law begins there: not in abstraction, but in the simple fact that a public street belongs to the public. 

Where anyone can temporarily become the state, the state finds it hard to remain the state.