BEIRUT, 11 September 2005 — In a country where politics and sectarianism go hand in hand, people pay attention to what clerics have to say about their community’s politicians.

Lebanon’s Council of Maronite Bishops on Wednesday issued a statement saying that an adequate solution had to be found to lift the cloud of suspicion surrounding the country’s presidency since the assassination in February of the former Premier Rafik Hariri.

Four top officers, including a close aide of pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud, have been arrested and charged in connection with the killing of Hariri.

Although carefully worded, the council’s statement was seen by some Lebanese as the first sign that the Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir may be starting to take some distance from the country’s beleaguered president.

Lahoud, who denies any wrongdoing, is a Maronite himself, in line with the sectarian dispensation of the Lebanese constitution.

Despite widespread calls for the resignation of Lahoud since February, with many Lebanese blaming Syria and its allies in Lebanon, including the president, for the death of Hariri, the patriarch repeatedly cautioned against attacking the symbol of the Christian community and the leader of the country.

Several leading Muslim politicians, eager not to alienate Christians, said that the decision to push for Lahoud’s resignation rested in the hands of the patriarch, and of Christian politicians, many of whom have been virulent in their criticism of the president.

The council of bishops’ statement went further by describing as “shameful and humiliating” the suspected involvement of four top officers in the Hariri assassination.

Three former top security chiefs and the commander of the Presidential Guard, Mustafa Hamdan, were arrested last week by the Lebanese police, on advice from a UN team investigating the killing.

The inquiry continues and more arrests are expected, but the four generals, all serving at the time of the assassination, have already been charged with the murder of Hariri.

After the arrests, Lahoud infuriated many Lebanese by praising Hamdan as “one of the best army officers”. The accused were powerful and feared for several years while they ran the security agencies — and on many levels the country itself — on behalf of Syria, Beirut’s political master for the last 15 years.

Lebanon’s political scene has changed considerably since the February assassination. Syria withdrew its 15,000 troops from Lebanon in April and two months later legislative elections brought an anti-Syrian majority to Parliament for the first time in decades.

But many in Lebanon are convinced that the country will somehow remain in Syria’s orbit unless all pro-Syrian figures are removed, including Lahoud, who is seen by many as the head of the pro-Syrian security regime.

Politicians and ordinary Lebanese believe that the current turmoil started not with the assassination of Hariri, but with Syrian pressure on Lebanon’s Parliament almost exactly a year ago to approve an amendment to the constitution and extend the mandate of its top ally, Lahoud, by three years.

It was a controversial move which set the sights of the international community on Syria as well.

But one year later and despite all the turmoil, Lahoud remains in power and adamant that he will “serve until the end of his term”.

Under Lebanese law, it is almost impossible to impeach a president so Lahoud’s critics have been calling on his conscience, asking him to do the right thing for the sake of the country.

After the arrests, the campaign against the president seemed to gather steam again with his fiercest critics calling for an end to the “occupation” of the presidential palace.

The arrests of the four officers gave the anti-Lahoud campaign new impetus but for several reasons, including sectarian ones, it has not yet turned into a full-blown movement to remove him. Lahoud was also given some respite after the UN team investigating the Hariri assassination said the president “was not a suspect”.

This came as a surprise to many Lebanese, eager to blame a man they see as partly responsible for the situation their country is in at the moment.

Lahoud himself has strongly denied any involvement and blamed “Lebanon’s enemies, Israel or Islamic extremists” for the assassination, claiming one of those parties was hoping to benefit from the turmoil.

“Even my adversaries realize that I do not have a single stain of blood on my hands,” he told French television over the summer. The final conclusions of the UN investigation, expected in October, may yet bring down Lahoud. Some politicians appear to believe a showdown with the president is not necessary at this moment.

It is difficult to see how the president could serve until the end of his term, unless he is completely exonerated in the final UN report or he makes some kind of political deal — an unlikely scenario.

But observers say the issue of political responsibility remains. And many Lebanese ask whether he isn’t at least responsible for the actions of his aides?

And if he was totally unaware of what was being planned, observers are asking in Beirut, is he fit to run a country?

— Kim Ghattas is a BBC News correspondent in Beirut.