“I attended the anti-Syrian demonstrations and really felt change was possible,” said Ziad Saab, a 23-year-old business student.

“But I feel betrayed by the opposition,” he said as he waited in the American University of Beirut for his next class. “Some are still talking about what is best for the Christians and what is best for the Muslims. I thought we were past that when we all marched under the one national flag at the demonstrations.”

Paul Tabar, a Lebanese political analyst and professor at the Lebanese American University, says the opposition has failed to reflect the aspirations of the hundreds of thousands of Lebanese who took to the streets demanding change.

“The young people are right to feel betrayed,” he said, “because what they have shown in terms of national unity the politicians did not build on.

“But there have been advances as candidates like Saad Hariri form lists that include representatives of many different opposition groups and not just his own Future Movement,” he said, referring to the slain premier’s son and political heir, who is running for office heading a ticket considered certain to win all of Beirut’s 19 seats.

The Taif Accord that ended Lebanon’s 1975-90 civil war divides parliament’s 128 seats evenly between Christians and Muslims, and the opposition is widely expected to dominate the new house.

The election, which will take place in four rounds running through to June 19, is the first without direct Syrian influence in decades.

Although the Syrians are no longer here, the electoral law they designed during the 2000 polls to help their allies dominate the house will govern this time around, even though many disapprove of the measure and consider it unjust.

The law carves the country into a mixture of smaller and larger electoral districts.

Christian leaders claim it places their community at a disadvantage in the large constituencies because the Christian vote is too small to affect the outcome in the majority Muslim districts, so the result for Christian candidates will be decided by Muslim voters.

The pro-Syrian Shi’ite Muslim parties of Hezbollah and the Amal Movement claim the Hariri killing was masterminded by Israel. They reject the smaller constituencies and want a law based on proportionality that takes into account the fact Shi’ites make up the bulk of the population.

“Government stopped after Hariri’s assassination and we just didn’t have time to properly debate the options for an electoral law,” said Abdullah Qassir, a Hezbollah MP for southern Lebanon. “We started with the election date and worked backwards.”

Prime Minister Najib Mikati has vowed that the polls will take place on time, despite calls by some politicians to postpone voting until a more representative law can be put in place.

The US, the European Union and the UN have all stressed that the elections must proceed as planned – a demand some Lebanese, including Hezbollah, see as foreign interference.

“Maybe postponement would have allowed for a new electoral law that would have given the opposition a better chance,” said Tabar, the political analyst.

“But it might also have given the pro-Syrians the opportunity to regroup.”

The widespread dissatisfaction has created rumblings of a Christian boycott in a number of electorates, although former president Amin Gemayel dismissed the notion.

“The 2000 law is wrong, but we won’t boycott these polls. We will try to make up at the ballot box for this unjust law that was forced on us,” a Maronite Christian opposition member said.

“If the elections don’t happen or we boycott the poll, the political limbo and uneasiness will continue, and that’s not in anyone’s interests.”