A Christian President, or President of the Christians?

Every once in a while, normally in the foreign press, you still see Aoun described as a non-sectarian leader. Hopefully, articles such as this one will put this idea to rest:

"'I enjoy Christian representation whether they like it or not,' Aoun warned. 'I'm known to represent 66 percent of the Christians. and whoever enjoys 66 percent has decision rights.'

'Anyone from the other (political) side who does not acknowledge me, will not be acknowledged by me,' Aoun went on."

Leave aside the second part of the quote, which is merely egomaniacal. As it has become increasingly clear that March 14 is not going to back his candidacy, Aoun has repeatedly pointed to his position as the supposed leader of Lebanese Christians. Strange grounds for a supposedly non-sectarian leader to base his authority on. I'm not sure what the "decision rights" are that General Aoun thinks he has, but both sides could use a refresher on the rules of the game.

It's depressing to see that Lebanon has grown more sectarian than even the Taef Accord, which enshrined the confessional political system. The Constitution is perfectly clear that the President is elected by Parliament, which is divided equally between Christians and Muslims. The office is chosen by the representatives of the Lebanese nation, not representatives of the Lebanese Christians. The March 14 Christians, as well as Aoun, have started to see it as some sort of private fiefdom instead of a national office. If they have some secret list of rules that govern Presidential elections, I invite them to share.