The start of the new year in Lebanon saw a return of discussions on the upcoming elections, the threat of greater spillover from the Syrian conflict simmering in the background. Hezbollah and its allies, namely Shiite group Amal led by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) led by Christian leader Michel Aoun, rejected the 1960 electoral law on Wednesday, demanding proportional representation that would support their bid for government and their choice of president in 2014. March 14 reject proportional laws which weaken Sunni and Christian electorates and warn against any delays in holding elections.

Hezbollah, propped up by weapons and demography, supports proportional representation. The Party currently dominates the government and is keen on replicating a similar scenario in the upcoming elections. In case the election is delayed, the current cabinet will govern until a new cabinet is formed. However, forming a new government is a long and complicated process, which requires opposing sides to make concessions - something that is highly unlikely given their current refusal to even attend national unity dialogue sessions convened by President Michel Suleiman.

Hezbollah is even more nervous about the upcoming election considering the government's lackluster track record and the Party's controversial support of the Syrian regime. Despite these issues, however, sectarian sentiment often drives voting behavior and may be sufficient in bringing Shiite voters back into Hezbollah's fold.

Hezbollah will likely run with its two-time electoral ally FPM leader Michel Aoun. Aoun does not support the 1960 law, arguing it diminishes the rights of Lebanese Christians. This is despite his and Hezbollah's support for the same law in 2009 and its adoption, to the detriment of the March 14 politicians. Aoun also sees in Hezbollah's support greater chances of making it to the presidency.

Other Christian leaders within the March 14 alliance have thus far expressed timid support for smaller district laws, as well as the Orthodox Gathering option requiring each sect to elect its own representatives. Some analysts predict they will join forces with their allies and may eventually accept the 1960 law.

For his part, Future Movement leader Saad Hariri still refuses to engage in the electoral debate until, he says, Hezbollah disarms. Hariri supports the 1960 law, as smaller districts under a winner-takes-all system offer wider representation of the Sunni community.

The most critical electoral position will be that of maverick politician Walid Jumblatt, leader of the Druze Progressive Socialist Party (PSP). It was Jumblatt's alliance with Saad Hariri that guaranteed March 14's victory in 2009. By the same token, his withdrawal from the Hariri cabinet led to its collapse and the subsequent formation of a March 8-dominated government in June 2011. Jumblatt and Hariri have disagreed over Syria and Hezbollah, the former appearing more reluctant to criticize and sever his relationship with the Shia party. However, Jumblatt does not support the proportional law proposed by Hezbollah or its allies. Instead, he favors one similar to the 1960 law which empowers the Druze electorate.

The various leaders appear predictably obstinate in their positions. As is often the case in Lebanon, electoral laws are often adopted last minute, with regional powers weighing in to broker an agreement. It took a brief Sunni-Shia civil war in May 2008 for the two political coalitions to come to the table and agree on a law to govern the 2009 election. It was the first time that Hezbollah turned its weapons inward to derive political concessions from its opponents. This time around, there is much more at stake given the raging conflict next door. Political leaders, now well-versed in the electoral game, must rise to the occasion and publicly commit to peacefully and democratically coming to an agreement. Settling the electoral battle any other way is costly and risks weakening one of the region's most established democracies.