You are here

Was the Arab Spring a bad idea?

Jan 13,2016 - Last updated at Jan 13,2016

I cannot recall when and by whom the term “Arab Spring” was first coined as a brand name for the series of uprisings that hit many Arab countries about five years ago.

Suddenly, at the beginning of the year 2011, many Arab capitals witnessed spontaneous demonstrations of crowds calling for political reform, as well as for ending dictatorial rule in these countries.

Surprisingly, what was seen as highly risky in semi-police states where such moves were confronted by harsh and instant countermeasures, the outbreak of unrest, starting in Tunis in December 2010 as the Jasmine revolution, kept escalating, leaving the concerned authorities, otherwise firm and in full control, bewildered and quite lame.

Because the Arab world was lagging behind in terms of democratisation at a time when most of the rest of the world was surging fast in that direction, the Arab rebellious mood took many by surprise.

It was not expected to last, but when it did, and when it started to spread across countries’ borders and gather force, it did in fact look like an Arab awakening, after decades of deadly slumber and inert submission to ruthless oppression and dictatorial governments where the people had no say whatsoever in their affairs.

It was indeed as if the Arab peoples were crossing the lines of a dark, gloomy, cold, depressing and endlessly boring winter into the refreshing light of a bright spring; hence the appellation “Arab Spring”.

However, when the first spectacular victories of the peoples’ uprisings in four important Arab countries were hardly able to replace what was jubilantly overthrown with anything better, the brand of Arab Spring started to loose its applicability.

Disappointed analysts as well as groups that were let down by what initially looked like promising leaps into a brighter future came up with adverse titles, mocking the entire reform enterprise as no more than a lightless Arab autumn.

In its early phase, the so-called Arab Spring claimed the political lives of four prominent dictators in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen.

The “Spring” plunged Syria into a tormenting war (still going on) that had in the last five years claimed more than a quarter of a million lives and destroyed most of the country.

Another dictator had been brought down by military action against his country, Iraq, led by the US, a decade before the advent of the Arab Spring.

Regime change in Libya and Yemen, and virtually in Syria, left these countries in total chaos. The situation in the other three countries where former dictatorships were overthrown is not stable either.

In the other three countries, Tunisia, Egypt and Iraq, the authorities, to varying degrees, have been trying year after year, but with very modest and hardly assuring success, to establish stability, good government, fight corruption, provide adequate security and build solid democratic institutions.

The road ahead, along the course of nation building and democratisation, seems to be long and quite bumpy.

Because of that, and since most of the above changes were direct outcomes of people’s protests in pursuit of change, the so-called Arab Spring was largely condemned as a bad idea.

Under no circumstances, really, should peoples’ peaceful and legitimate quest for freedom from corrupt dictatorial rule and oppressive government be thought of as a bad idea.

What may indeed be bad is the absence of a strategy for the day after.

In most Arab countries where former administrations were ousted, there were no strategies for what should follow. But that only is a simple answer.

The failure of the Arab Spring, if that is the case, requires objective assessments of the case of each country individually, as every one of the concerned Arab countries has its own particularity.

And in addition to the obvious incompetence of the new forces, their lack of experience, opportunism, the frenzied race for political benefits, the struggle among them for positions and the absence of national strategies, there were other adverse decisive factors as well.

They included: strong foreign intervention by regional and international powers to protect client regimes under pressure. (Back in January 2011, when former Tunisian president Zine Al Abidine Bin Ali was under intense popular pressure to step down, French Interior Minister Michele Alliot-Marie offered to send him French security forces to help him counter his people’s rebellion);  local reactionary forces were also mobilised, and still are, to fight the forces of change to protect their massive interests under the threatened regimes.

The initial failure of the relentless efforts of such local, regional and international forces in preventing regime change, wherever that occurred, did not discourage them from continuing their ignoble struggle to reverse any accomplishments of the Arab Spring. 

All those reactionary forces are currently engaged, and deeply so, in the war in Syria in pursuit of their interests, irrespective of what is good for Syria or for regional peace and stability.

It may not be easy to argue in favour of the Arab Spring in light of the fact that the ousted dictators provided their countries with more stability and more internal peace than their successors.

Neither should that imply that the former dictatorships, with all their oppressive, cruel and corrupt practices were legitimate systems of better government.

My conclusion is that the Arab Spring is passing through stages that may involve failures and successes.

There is no question that the mission is noble even if the outcomes are, so far, poor.

The Arab Spring did prompt change wherever peaceful and orderly change was possible. It may continue to press in that direction.

 

Let us hope, and there is good reason for such optimistic expectation, that the prevailing chaos in some Arab countries will eventually end and better administrations would emerge there.

up
34 users have voted.


Newsletter

Get top stories and blog posts emailed to you each day.

PDF