Which issue should come first? More importantly, which option best serves the interests of the Lebanese people?

Logically, the establishment of the state inevitably leads to the abolition of political sectarianism. In that case, the latter becomes a natural outcome of state-building.

This logic may lead many to view a secular state as the best and most suitable choice for Lebanon’s future, as discussions have shown it to be a safe framework for guaranteeing individual rights and upholding justice.

According to appellate lawyer Elie Klimos, who holds advanced degrees in law and political and administrative sciences, “Abolishing sectarianism can be a solution if accompanied by other reforms: first, establishing a Senate; second, holding parliamentary elections free from sectarian constraints; third, clearly defining the roles of Parliament and the Senate; and fourth, implementing non-sectarian reform laws, at the very least through a unified civil personal status law and a new modern party law that prohibits parties with religious-based agendas that contradict the Lebanese Constitution.”

In the concept of a secular state, religion is separated from the state in the public sphere and in political legislation, while the law derives its authority from citizenship rather than sectarian affiliation.

There is no doubt that this leads to full equality before the law and fosters a comprehensive national identity instead of narrow loyalties. It also serves as the foundation upon which other elements are built, as part of an integrated framework. At that point, issues such as judicial independence or guaranteeing individual freedoms beyond sectarian constraints become natural outcomes of state-building.

Elie Klimos points out that “the solution lies in establishing a genuine secular state, rather than continuing to live under a godless sectarianism as is the case today, and instead of replicating models that may be alien to our society.”

Over the years, the issue of abolishing political sectarianism in Lebanon has remained a point of political contention, treated almost like an “à la carte menu” depending on circumstances and interests. At every sensitive or critical political moment, some return to raising the issue of abolishing political sectarianism without presenting any clear project or vision.

Abolishing sectarianism is meant to put an end to the struggle over quotas and power-sharing in public office, and to open the door to competence and merit instead of sectarian affiliation. Yet, for 36 years, this issue has not been seriously addressed, despite being considered an inseparable part of an integrated reform package — beginning with the establishment of a Senate, passing through the implementation of expanded administrative decentralization, and culminating in a unified civil personal status law.

Elie Klimos comments that “abolishing political sectarianism without constitutional reforms and reform laws would be akin to allowing some sects to dominate others.”

More frankly, abolishing sectarianism without this comprehensive constitutional reform process could lead to “numerical dominance” by one group over another within Lebanon’s pluralistic structure, potentially marginalizing other components. From another perspective, it is part of a broader whole — not the whole itself.