Blessed as the only Middle Eastern nation without a desert, Lebanon nonetheless is a Sahara of sectarian feuds. The nation’s political system is a delicate balance between Sunni and Shiite Muslims and Christians.

The previously sectarian system was established under French mandate rule when Christians commanded a majority. The presidency was reserved for a Maronite Catholic, the prime minister was to be a Sunni and the speaker of parliament a Shiite. Christians were given a 6:5 ratio in the parliament.

The 1960s saw the Christian population percentage decline in the fact of higher Muslim birth rates and Christian emigration. The new Muslim middle-class, led by a consortium of leftist parties, began to advocate for a change in the political structure that would reflect the new demographics. Many Christians, led by the rightist and Nazi-inspired Phalange party, resented the challenge to Christian-majority rule.

The presence of a Palestinian refugee state-within-a-state added tensions to Lebanon’s increasingly confrontational and divisive politics. The system fell apart on April 13, 1975 when the Lebanese Civil War began.

The war lasted 15 years at the cost of 150,000 Lebanese and Palestinian lives. The end result was the Saudi-brokered Ta’if agreement. Instead of doing away with a confessional system of politics which bequeathed war and adopt a secular and nationalist system of governance, both sides opted to modify the Lebanese order. The president would remain a Maronite, but power of governance shifted to the Sunni prime minister and the position of the Shiite speaker was also enhanced. The new parliament was split 5:5 between Muslims and Christians even though by then the Christian population had fallen to roughly 35%.

It would be hard for most observers of Lebanon to conclude that the Ta’if agreement resolved the causes of war in light of recent events that saw street battles between Sunnis and Shiite and tensions between rightist Christians and the main Shiite party-cum-militia Hezbollah.

National elections held on June 8th pitted a U.S. and Saudi-backed coalition of Sunni Muslims, right-wing Christians and Druze (an Islamic sect) known as March 14 against an Iranian and Syrian-backed coalition of Shiites and centrist Christians known as March 8.

Although March 8 won 54% of the vote, due to Lebanon’s system of skewed distribution March 14 strengthened its parliamentary majority.

The Sunni-led March 14 has nonetheless reached out to Hezbollah in an effort to create a unity government. This has angered right-wing Maronite Patriarch Sufayr. During the national campaign, Sufayr was instrumental for undermining Christian support for the Free Patriotic Movement, the Christian bloc aligned with Hezbollah, and has been on record stating that Christians should only vote for fellow Christians while Muslims should do like wise and vote only for Muslims. Although content with an alliance with Sunnis, Sufayr resents the more dominant Shiites. He had publicly advised the current government to keep out of government the Shiite-led March 8 coalition. While he did not employ sectarian language, but by simply stating that the minority faction should be left out of power it was clear whom he was referring to.

Lebanon’s senior Ayatullah Muhammad Husayn spoke on behalf of many Shittes in issuing an equally veiled dismissal of the sectarian Maronite Patriarch. Ayatullah Fadlallah stated in a Iftar (breaking of Ramadan fast) speech that “the glory of Lebanon has not been given to him” but to the resistance against Israel. Hezbollah has been nearly alone in resisting Israeli occupation and in driving occupying Israeli forces out of most of south Lebanon in 2000.

Fadlallah’s choice of words sent a clear message. The expression “the glory of Lebanon” is a traditional one and reads in full “the glory of Lebanon has been given to the Patriarch.” Fadlallah is using a Christian phrase of privilege to send the message that the new Lebanese establishment is not that of Maronite Catholics, but that the “glory” belongs to the Shiite resistance. Fadlallah went further, and without mentioning Patriarch Sufayr by name, stated that if a person wants majority rule then let it extend throughout the whole country. In a secular order, Shiites compromising a plurality of at least 40% of the population would gain most in representation rather than currently being confined to roughly a quarter of the parliament in the aforementioned ration of 5:5 between Christians and Muslims, Sunni and Shiite.

Fadlallah’s speech comes down to this: Lebanon’s dominant Shiite community will not be denied political power at the hands of entitlement-minded, right-wing Christians whom believer exclusive “glory” has been bestowed on them.

Such rhetoric, if allowed to escalate, would increase tensions between both community. But that is unlikely since both sides have more to gain through cooperation and Hezbollah’s al-Manar TV eventually removed all references to the speech on its website in an effort to suppress circulation of the confrontational speech.

Professor As’ad Abu Khalil, a native of Lebanon, wrote on his blog - Angry Arab News Service - that the words of Patriarch Sufayr, that minority parties should be excluded from government, may come to hunt him:

Sufayr is too dumb to realize that Sunnis and Shi`ites will use his own argument in the future to justify excluding Christians from government. When the Sunnis and Shi`ites reach an agreement, they will use Sufayr’s own arguments to rule without regard to Christians in Lebanon.