Lebanese lawmakers decided to postpone scheduled presidential elections – previously earmarked for last Tuesday – to pave the way for further negotiations to bring about a consensus candidate. The deferral has received the backing of the country’s main foreign interveners, including the US, who continuously champion Lebanon as a model of democracy in the Arab world.

President George W. Bush has constantly maintained that Hezballah is responsible for “undermining democracy” in Lebanon. Indeed, Hezballah – which leads Lebanon’s Opposition grouping of mainly Shia and Christian parties – blocked Tuesday’s presidential vote by boycotting the parliamentary session, denying the two-third quorum required to vote.

Although the West upholds Lebanon as a Middle Eastern democracy, vigorously supporting its beleaguered “elected” government, the country’s political process can only loosely be called democratic.

Lebanon’s political system is torn along confessional lines, designed to provide equilibrium among the countries various religious sects. Essentially, the power share is divided among the big three: the Maronite Christians, Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims. Throughout Lebanon’s short and turbulent history, the Maronites and Sunnis have had the greater share of political and economic power, while the Shia has long held the title of the underclass.

Consequently, the demographics of the nation do not exactly add up with the power allocations. Despite the Shi’ites making up roughly 35-40% of the country, the largest single sect in the country, they’re only allotted 27 seats in the 128-seated parliament — that’s only 21%. The Sunnis, who roughly number 15%–20% of the population, are allocated the same number of seats. Therefore, according to Lebanon’s “democratic” institutions, one Sunni is worth two Shi’ites. The Christians also get more than their fair share, receiving a combined 50% of the parliamentary seats for a community that only amounts to 39% of the population.

Yet, of course, the pro-American parliamentary majority – also referred to as the March 14 alliance which heads the government – is considered by the West as Lebanon’s democratically elected leadership. The unusual alliance of Sunni, Druze (an offshoot Shia sect) and right-wing Christian parties is currently vying for power against Hezballah and Lebanon’s main Christian party headed by maverick former general Michel Aoun.

When the pro-American alliance rallied one-million people on 14 March, 2005 (the date the alliance is named after) to end Syria’s 30-year domination, the West heralded the march as “people power”, before finally giving it the title of the “Cedar Revolution”. The Western media were all over this story, showering the world with images of a free Lebanon.

Yet, in December 2006, Beirut witnessed its largest ever rally of 1.5 million (although Hezballah estimates the figure at 2 million) demanding the end of American intervention in the country, and the resignation of its proxy government, President Bush referred to it once again as “undermining stability and democracy” and the Western media overlooked the Lebanese people’s cry.

Lebanon is far from our Western understanding of democracy as an expression of the will of the people. Democracy is a term used selectively in this country. The Syrians referred to Lebanon as a progressive democracy when its cronies were in charge for 15 years, much like the Americans are today.

And while we sit and wait for the country’s politicians, and their regional backers, to compromise on a presidential candidate before 23 October, the Lebanese people wonder how many more times they need to rally to win their democratic rights.