As the Lebanese people make their way to the polls today for the first round of parliamentary voting, the confusing muddle of regional and sectarian candidates has generated some ennui among the populace.

In some districts like Beirut, the opposition, led by Said Hariri (son of the late political icon) and the old Druze warlord Walid Jumblatt are united and virtually unopposed. In other districts, the opposition is fractured and contentious races involving other factions including Hizballah and the party led by former Prime Minister and political opportunist Michel Aoun expect to do well.

Here’s an excellent analysis on the strange bedfellows Lebanese politics has created in the last few weeks as both Hariri and Jumblatt seek to get the most out of the election:

The alliance between Saad Hariri and Hizb’allah’s Nasrallah was born out of a supposed deal struck between Nasrallah and the late Rafik Hariri just a week before his death. This deal was based on the notion that Hariri would not call on Hizb’allah to disarm personally, and Saad has affirmed this. Walid Jumblatt’s Progressive Socialist Party is also part of this alliance, and Nasrallah has urged his mainly Shiite followers to vote for Hariri’s lists in Beirut and Jumblatt’s lists in Aley-Baabda. In fact, many of the seats have gone uncontested and the opposition is likely to sweep them all. But Hizb’allah has also struck a sweet deal with another Shiite bloc, Amal, in order to retain total dominance of the South and likely Beqaa.

At bottom, is the electoral law written with the Syrian’s blessing and passed in 2001 that guarantees the various factions a certain number of seats. But the divisions in Lebanese politics go deeper than religion as this analysis points out:

The categories of “Muslim” and “Christian” are all but meaningless politically in Lebanon. The system is not based on the representation of “Muslims” and “Christians.” This is legally wrong, and assumes that “Muslims” are a monolithic, coherent political cluster, and the same goes for Christians. In reality, each one is divided into several sects, which are in turn divided into subcategories (families, regions, political inclination, etc.). Those are the divisions that count and are reflected in parliament and in the elections. The corollary to that are the alliances in the election and in parliament, which create what’s known as “real representation.” In part, this was the complaint of some in the Christian circles, that some “Christian” candidates on certain lists were really the choice of the dominant political figure or alliance in that particular district, as opposed to being the choice of the Christian voters (or certain Christian parties). In that sense, that particular Christian candidate will for the most part be allied in parliament with the non-Christian figure/list on which he ran. Of

These “lists” of candidates worked out in advance by political foes seek to bring some order to the chaos so that vote splitting between the many parties are kept to a minimun. To make up these lists, especially in areas where there’s fierce electoral competition, temporary electoral alliances are forged between parties that are likely to be at each other’s throats when parliament convenes.

Then, there’s the political wildcard represented by General Aoun whose last minute pullout from the Qornet Shehwan Gathering, the main Christian opposition group, has upset the applecart:

In Baabda-Aley, the Chouf, Metn and the North, Aoun will now challenge Jumblatt, Hariri and the scattered Christian parties. Even if these developments do not cause a complete upset (as no one truly expects they will), the unexpected shift has made the race too close to call.

Aoun had allied his FPM with Talal Arslan’s Lebanese Democratic Party, which will run alone against Jumblatt in the Chouf following the voluntary withdrawal of General Issam Abu Jamra to advance the chances of Arslan’s second-in-command, Marwan Abu Fadel, whereas Dory Chamoun and the Syrian Social National Party were excluded from this coalition.

Don’t worry. It gets even more confusing.

Aoun, who’s something of an anti-Syrian icon has made common cause with Talal Arslan’s pro-Syrian LDP. Arslan is a rival of Walid Jumblatt and expects to run well in the North. For Aoun, it was a case of having to align himself with someone and Arslan was about all that was left. Jumblatt has criticised Aoun for weakening the opposition at a crucial moment but in reality, the colorful former head of the Lebanese armed forces had little choice if he wanted to be a player in the new government.

And then there’s Hizballah. The US considers the “Party of God” to be a terrorist group. Indeed, the leader of the radicals, Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, recently bragged that his armed militia has 12,000 rockets aimed at Israel. And while UN Resolution 1599 urging the election called for disarming Hizballah, no prominent politician – including Hariri and Jumblatt – have done so. While tactically necessary, both men will be under pressure from the United States and the west after the elections to negotiate Hizballah’s disarming.

In a recent speech, Nasrallah seemed to lay out the conditions necessary for disarmament:

Hizbullah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s fiery Liberation Day comments Wednesday in Bint Jbeil come in this context. Nasrallah linked Hizbullah’s disarmament with achievement of a peace settlement in the region and asserted the party will fight to the death anyone who thinks about disarming the resistance by force.

He urged parties that established contacts with Israel in the past and relied on the U.S. not to do so again, and suggested they reach an understanding with their local partners instead, including Hizbullah.

Tying disarmament to a general middle east peace deal would seem to be bad news. Some observers however, thought they saw a little give in Nasrallah’s remarks:

Nasrallah gave Hizbullah’s weapons a regional function when he linked disarming to the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and not to Israel’s withdrawal from the Shebaa Farms.

Nasrallah’s speech came at a time when some Western ambassadors are polling opinions of Lebanese officials and leaders regarding implementation of the clause in UN Resolution 1559 related to disarming Hizbullah.

In other words, Nasrallah may have left the door open for the militia’s integration into the Lebanese armed forces, a solution that’s been mentioned by all the major opposition candidates.

Three other rounds in the electoral process are scheduled. It remains to be seen whether these electoral alliances will lead to a stable, independent Lebanese government or if the sectarianism and factionalism of the past will lead to chaos.

With so much at stake and with the “Cedar Revolution” still fresh in their minds, there’s a good chance that the participants will put aside their many differences and reach an equitable solution – one that embraces Lebanon’s political diversity and religious differences.