You are here:   Columns >  Points East & West > Arab Spring Sprung?
 

Where does this leave us? There is little doubt that Arab stirrings have to do with a demand, strongly felt across the region, to change the basic social contract between rulers and ruled — and the change must take the dignity of the ruled into account more than in the past. But dignity in the Arab world is not the same as individual freedoms in the Western world, and the coincidence of turmoil with steep increases in commodity prices should be a warning against drawing facile comparisons between Araby in 2011 and Eastern Europe in 1989.

Enthusiasts misjudged the resilience of regional powers — especially the local monarchies-and the aspirations of the protesters. They also forgot the region's boundaries. If 1989 offers any lesson for the Middle East, it is the descent into chaos of the Balkans or the many tribal wars and ethnic tensions that erupted as the Soviet empire collapsed. After all, most Middle East countries are largely colonial inventions held together by strongmen. Even if revolutions spread, democracy might have to wait for civil wars and ethnic cleansing to redraw regional boundaries — not a happy prospect, but a very real one.

There is another fundamental difference between 1989 and 2011. In 1989, Eastern European nations sought to free themselves from the yoke of Soviet and communist oppression and looked at democracy as the only viable political alternative to their predicament. Their transition from Warsaw Pact to Nato members, from communist dictatorships to liberal democracies, did not encounter robust domestic opposition.

But Arab protesters in 2011, who wish to free their countries from their dictators' superpower sponsor, more often than not see America and the free world behind their authoritarian rulers. And as they denounce authoritarianism, democracy finds in Islamism — the opposition ideology in much of the Arab world — a fierce competitor. This year may thus turn out to be a big disappointment for the promoters of democracy in the Arab world and their Western supporters. Spring may still come, but only after a very long winter.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Lady Amelia
July 16th, 2011
1:07 PM
The military did not "hijack" the revolution in Egypt. They played a neutral hand during the revolution but showed that they supported the people over Mubarak. They were welcomed with open arms in Tahrir square and the country sighed with relief when they stepped to fill the void left by the overthrow of Mubarak and the NDP. As I was being evacuated by my employers from Cairo I saw whole families welcoming army tanks with open arms. The army has disappointed since and there is now considerable dissatisfacgtion against the SCAF, but please be accurate in your statements - this is a later development, not a hijacking.

John Samford
July 2nd, 2011
5:07 PM
You left out Syria? Why? Support for hezz-bo-allah? If Syria falls, so does the Army of god. That means Lebanon goes democratic. BTW, Israel isn't worried about Egypt. Historically Arabs have always been caravan raiders and camel lifters. That will never be able to match the west with it's 'shield wall' military traditions. The shield wall was developed thousands of years ago for the purpose of defeating raider tactics. Both sides still have the same mindset. Both sides still get the same results. The worst part of the invasion of Iraq by America was the US effort to teach the Iraqi's the shield wall mentality. If it took, we have created a monster.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.