“Arab Spring”: One Success, Many Failures?

Nobody can deny it: Tunisia is heading towards a better future. After the uprising and the people’s rejection of any compromise with the old regime, elections were organized with a high level of transparency. The Islamist party won with more than 40% of votes cast and is now poised to play a leading role in the new government. The result—whether we agree with the Islamist political vision or not—shows that the country has freed itself and that the West is no longer controlling Tunisian internal political dynamics. We are witnessing the full achievement of the first Arab uprising: the dictatorship is over; we will never return to the past; Tunisia is free. A success—and an invitation to celebrate what many call the “Arab Spring.”

Tunisia is the first—and may well remain the only one. Whichever way we turn in the Middle East and in North Africa, things seem less clear, less successful. In Egypt, the military is still in charge; despite the upcoming election, what we are witnessing looks more like military coup d’état every day. American officials raised the possibility in February when Mubarak left power; it seems they were right. The Americans may have let Mubarak drop but they were never far from the officers and their new power. The people gathered in Midan at-Tahrir were calling for more justice and freedom. Mubarak left and the military regime began to show signs of weakness. Ten months later, it is far from being overthrown. The country is under control and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) has the upper hand over Egypt’s destiny. American influence and presence are proving decisive. Even though, at the end of the process, a civilian such as Mohammed el-Baradei may be elected, the military apparatus would never allow the regime to move too far in the direction of transparency, freedom and democracy. (Try to guess where the Army would stand within the new political structure!). There has been no revolution in Egypt.

The National Transitory Council in Libya has announced it would establish “shari’a” and accept “polygamy,” as if to tell the Libyan people that the country would be free of Western influence. Yet behind the scenes, after the NATO intervention, what passes for autonomy is more theoretical than real. The country’s economic and the geostrategic relationships with the United States and Europe are an open secret. Qaddafi is dead, yet the country is far from free: a controlled democracy is better than a dictatorship, we are aptly told; still, it remains a democracy under foreign control.

Events seem to be following the same course in Syria, Yemen and even Bahrein. Each country has its own particularities, yet they share the same fate. Popular movements are saying, “enough is enough” to the dictators, but the dynamic has been redirected and the balance of power has shifted. It is not enough to say that the beautiful future will be unlike the ugly past; simply acknowledging the end of the dictators is not sufficient cause for happiness. The key question is that of true political autonomy and genuine freedom in the respective countries. Ultimately, as we analyze the events now unfolding, one legitimate question springs to mind: who will benefit from the Arab uprisings?

The Tunisian experience is perceived as a reference; no one can deny the democratic evolution that has actually brought “moderate Islamists” to power. But the example of Tunisia might play out more as hope, as a potentially misleading example, a distorting screen. The Tunisian “spring” might stop us from seeing other countries clearly. We think of the Arab spring as a movement, a domino effect, while instead it should be seen as a chess game. As you advance your pawn, your knight or your bishop against the dominant political and economic powers, you might sense victory. But the strategic centre of the board, centering on the king and queen, are under close control. Your temporary emotional victory might, in the long term, turn to failure, an unachieved revolution.