The presence of a senior Syrian official at the Annapolis meeting that launched a new round of Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations has had a positive effect on the desperate search in Lebanon for a leader to assume the presidency after it was unceremoniously vacated last Friday.

The attraction was not in the focus of the conclave but in at least one participant.

The Syrians had played their hand masterfully, refusing to commit themselves to attend the grand event at the historic town of Annapolis and its impressive Naval Academy where nearly 50 representatives of several nations and international institutions were present. They insisted they would not participate unless the agenda included a discussion of the Israeli occupation of Syria's Golan Heights. The surprise came when the agenda was released last Tuesday. The American sponsors succumbed and the issue of the Golan Heights was included, obviously much to the delight of the Syrians and others.

Actually the session was titled "Toward a Comprehensive Peace in the Middle East" and identified the "future separate tracks between Israel and (its) neighbours," namely Syria and Lebanon whose famous area called Sheba'a Farms is still in Israeli hands.

Whatever the presence of the Syrian official, Deputy Foreign Minister Fayssal Mekdad, in Annapolis has triggered, many in Lebanon had hopes that this may signal a first step towards a US-Syrian rapprochement. If so, this may contribute to filling the vacant presidential seat left after the departure of President Emile Lahoud at the end of his term last Friday. The vacuum at the top has touched off a serious polarisation in the country, but much to the delight of many the Lebanese people do not seem ready to stomach another civil war, as happened in 1975-1990.

The failure to find a "consensual" or compromise successor at the top in Lebanon stems, in great part, from the root problem in the country where all government positions, elected or appointed, have to correspond to the size of the religious sects although no census has been taken for generations, and not one sect has a majority in the country. For example, the president has to be a Maronite, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim and the speaker of the Parliament a Shiite Muslim, and so on, including all civil servants.

Conflict

Today's conflict is actually political, one group, according to the Lebanese media, is pro-Western and the other is supportive of Syria and Iran, which in part explains the excitement about Syria's participation in the US-sponsored conference in Annapolis. The Bush administration is eager to break this alliance in the region, in part to satisfy reported Arab concerns of Iran's growing influence and feared ambitions. A nuclear Iran is also a great threat to Israel, seen as America's best friend in the region.

Yet, the political rivalry in Lebanon has sectarian overtones, a factor that is troubling to most Lebanese. It thus may be time that Lebanon should seriously consider abandoning this sectarian divide once a new president and prime minister is chosen - an undertaking that cannot be underestimated.

Dr Clovis Maksoud, a professor of international law at American University in Washington where he is also director of the Centre for Global South, noted in an interview that "there is a measure of growing estrangement between the establishment in Lebanon, which is predicated exclusively on sectarianism, at a moment when there is a growing civil society ... that feels the sectarian system might have been useful to bring about a level of cohabitation (but) has now become a vested interest."

He pointed out that the sectarian system was modified after the 1975-1990 civil war whereby it became "more representative of the demographic structure." But, Maksoud, who is Lebanese, added that "as a result of the growing awareness (in the country) - women empowerment, the (widening) divide between the rich and poor - there is no relationship between the citizen and the state except through the sectarian leaders. The citizen has no right and no obligation except as defined by the sectarian system."

Maksoud continued, "So you find that the cultural, intellectual and educated groups are completely talking a different language than the sectarian political structure or leadership. It is this that is creating a measure one of frustration and a level of citizens' indifference". However, he cautioned that "at this juncture sectarianism cannot be abandoned except in an incremental way". The reason, he explained, "the leaders of these sects have developed a sort of vested interest in buying time for the sectarian system. That's the unfortunate part."