The followers of the Orthodox sect in Lebanon want to elect their representatives in the parliament. The Maronites liked the idea and commended it. But both sects missed one important detail: it is impossible to match the elections that they are aspiring for with equality between Muslims and Christians. The forces that took part in the Taef accord in 1989 – those were completely sectarian forces – endorsed equality considering that it was a concession from the part of the Muslims since Muslims outnumber the Christians. Their concession aimed at reassuring the Christians when it comes to their future and role in Lebanon following the civil war. In that sense, the Muslims agreed to introduce a defect to one of the constitutional bases that no constitutional founding text belonging to the modern world can overcome, which is justice among citizens. The aim was to close the page of war and tone down the effect of the Christians' failure, in addition to preserving the remaining Christian presence in Lebanon. The Lebanese system under the full Syrian tutelage between 1990 and 2005 had maintained equality in form with respect to the posts indicated by the constitution and the Taef accord (this includes the ministers, the MPs and the first rank employees). Meanwhile, the man in charge of the Syrian intelligence living in the town of Anjar kept for himself a quasi-absolute power in appointing or dismissing any of those servants solely based on loyalty to Syria. This term was applied to Muslims and Christians equally. But the effect of the loyalty term was most dangerous on the Christians, most forces of which were secluded because of their former animosity to the Syrian regime. The Christian objections to the obvious injustice went on. Several bodies were formed, including the Kornet Chehwan Meeting, in order to express their objection to the major imbalance in the authorities to the interest of the Syrians first and the Muslims second. And throughout the six years that followed the pullout of the Syrian forces from Lebanon, the attempts at amending the laws pertaining to the elections and the sectarian representation in the state's institutions – mainly the constitution and the Taef accord – all failed. Another aspect of the problem of the Christian representation is connected to the presence of the Christians as a minority in many electoral sectors. Thus, non-Christians were electing an important part of Christian MPs. Hence, those MPs had to be loyal to political forces that do not necessarily express the Christians' aspirations. All of the above falls under the title of just demands and demands that can be discussed and negotiated among the citizens of one country who selected, willingly or by force, the sectarian representation in forming their political authorities. However, the outcome reached by the figures who took part in the Orthodox and Maronite meetings indicates something else. All what those meeting participants want – these include MPs and prominent figures from both sects – is for the selection of the representatives of both sects to be confined to their own children; and they do not mind that the other sects follow in their footsteps. But on the other hand, they are insisting on equality in official posts. This leads to a major difference between the number of the necessary votes to ensure the victory of a Christian candidate and those votes that are needed by a Muslim candidate to access a parliamentary seat for instance. Thus, a “Christian will have the same chance as the Muslims” (according to the term used by Historian and the Researcher on Lebanese political sociology, Ahmad Baydoun). This sets the way for going back to the republic of 1943 when the Muslims were the ones complaining about discrimination. The Taef accord did carry a seed for moving away from sectarian representation by asking for the formation of a committee (which was never formed of course) in order to end political sectarianism. The Christian politicians and clerics ignored this “seed” and decided to toss it away along with the dirty laundry water, i.e. with the Taef accord including all its gaps. The least to be said in this regard is that the Lebanese seculars and the Muslims will once again find themselves in the face of a new phase of Christian seclusion. The Christian leaders are unaware of the extent of changes that took place in the Arab world since the mid seventies and until this day. The paradox is that those who are warning against the drop in the number of Christians in the Levant seem to be keen on realizing their own prophecy.
