When Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah declared in his latest speech that “either we resume counting, or everyone should recognize their actual size,” his words sparked outrage across Lebanon, particularly among Christians.
But what if we were to argue that Nasrallah wasn’t entirely wrong?
On April 13, 1975, a Lebanese faction fired the first shot, triggering the civil war. Had that faction won the war, its goals would likely have been imposed as a reality—its “natural right.”
However, in 1990, the war ended with the Taif Agreement. Although the balance of power then leaned toward Muslims, equal power-sharing between Christians and Muslims became the formula that most Lebanese eventually accepted, regardless of sect.
Since then, Lebanon has operated under a confessional power-sharing system viewed at the time as a temporary compromise, not a sustainable solution.
Still, it was the best available formula to end a 15-year destructive conflict that pit different factions against each other.
The country is still governed by a power-sharing system between Christians and Muslims—a framework that was originally seen as a temporary fix, not a long-term solution. Yet, at the time, it was considered the best possible arrangement to end a devastating conflict that had pitted various factions against one another and lasted 15 years.
As the Lebanese proverb goes: “What works for you today may work against you tomorrow.”
This saying perfectly captures Lebanon’s current reality.
Christians, once a clear majority who ruled Lebanon under a system that marginalized Muslims until 1989, now live in an era where Muslims are numerically dominant—yet power remains equally divided.
But what about tomorrow?
Whether Christians represent 19% or 34%, the numbers point in one direction: steady demographic decline.
This shift has ignited fierce debates about Lebanon’s future.
For many Christians, federalism or even partition—two sides of the same coin in Lebanon’s context—offer a sense of security.
Muslims, on the other hand, insist on maintaining parity but argue that true democracy would be the fairest solution: “Let whoever wins, rule.”
Thus, Lebanon remains trapped in a political tug-of-war, with neither side willing to concede ground.
So, what’s the solution to this governance dilemma?
It is clear that the Christian community’s fear for its future has placed it in a dilemma. If it calls for partition or federalism, such proposals would be highly provocative. . …especially for Muslims. And if Muslims, in turn, were to call for a truly democratic system, Christians would inevitably pay the price due to demographic realities.
“Federalism cannot be implemented solely through Christian voices, primarily Maronite ones. To achieve any measure of success, the structural issues currently posing significant barriers must first be addressed, alongside comprehensive collective efforts. In the absence of a cross-sectarian consensus in support of federalism, there can be no expectation of maintaining power-sharing or preserving peace between sectarian cantons functioning independently from one another. As currently proposed, federalism is a recipe for renewed civil strife, as Lebanon’s history has repeatedly shown us.”
Thus, the only viable solution lies in maintaining the status quo—keeping the existing power-sharing system as it is. Christians, therefore, should accept the political arrangement they currently benefit from, one that Muslims also insist upon, and approach sensitive issues with greater pragmatism. After all, constant bickering between partners only leads to divorce and the collapse of the household. So, would Christians be willing to trigger that divorce, while Muslims aim to maintain a “Maronite marriage” with no option of separation?
Christians must also recognize that the current governing formula is the very framework that guarantees their continued presence in the country. At the same time, they need to understand that declining demographics work against their long-term influence, potentially tipping the balance politically, socially, and economically, and eventually providing their partners in Lebanon with a legitimate argument to demand a new political formula—one that better reflects shifting realities.
As for Christian political parties and the Church, they must set aside their internal rivalries and prioritize the future of the Lebanese Christian community, which increasingly contemplates emigration out of despair over the country’s deteriorating state. They must understand that no one can safeguard their existence more than themselves. Sunnis, Druze, and Shiites may respect and appreciate Christians, but not more than they value their own interests.
And if Hassan Nasrallah referred to the “counting” that was once halted by the late Rafic Hariri, who’s to say Hariri himself wouldn’t have declared, “Let’s resume the count”, had he been alive today?
