However, the most fascinating aspect of the National Compact is the one that is often overlooked, but which is the most important: the allocation of the three high-level positions within the state to certain communities. The pact implied that the President of the Republic would be a Maronite, the Prime Minister a Sunni and the Parliament`s spokesman a Shiite. This has never been formally explained or formulated, but it has remained intact ever since, reflecting the strength of the pact and its superiority over strictly written constitutional texts. Another consequence of this implicit promise to share power was the decision to reserve very important government positions for certain communities. Maronites are expected to take the lion`s share, especially in important areas of the state. The commander of the army, the heads of military intelligence and state security services, as well as the governor of the Central Bank, to name a few, were all Maronites.7 As the war continues in Syria, sectarian divisions in Lebanon have begun to shift from an interest-based orientation to an identity orientation. , and a much more symbolic political orientation. In other words, political identification mechanisms have taken on a more existential dimension, characterized by a zero-sum approach in politics, incompatible with more traditional means of pursuing interests such as power games, negotiation and other forms of transactions. The fear factor came to ruin everything. The two levels never mixed, never confused and strengthened. However, while the inter-creational competition originally focused on political dysfunctions and dealt with issues of prerogatives, representation, power-sharing, government formation and a right of review in decision-making, and while mobilization was taking place in a political, albeit very confessional, context, the struggle took on a religious colour , individuals and groups that define themselves as vulnerable communities. Beyond the text, Taif was largely marked by the way it was implemented after 1990, and the way Lebanon was governed both by its new leaders and by Syria, which exercised control – or guardianship – over the country.

From the outset, many observers and critics of Taif have found that the government inadequacies described in the agreement were intentional for reasons of Syrian power. Taif`s international guarantors had unanimously agreed that Syria could impose a de facto protectorate on Lebanon and its political life.