Most of the media still considers the so-called “Arab Spring” to be one of the most important occurrences in the Middle East, both regionally and internationally, columnist Bahjat Qarni wrote in Abu Dhabi daily Al Ittihad.
The subject was mentioned more often than the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, despite US secretary of state John Kerry’s repeated visits to the region, and even more than discussions about Iran’s nuclear programme.
Talk about stumbling or failing in the quest for democratic transformation seems to be increasing. Some authoritarian rulers have been ousted but others, such as in Syria, seem to be clinging to power against all odds. Countries that appeared to be writing a new page in their history – Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen – face considerable challenges and are paying a high socio-economic price, casting doubt on the feasibility of the deep democratisation process.
The main question is this: what lies behind the “stumbling” phenomenon?
“One must first exclude the wrong answer that may be given to this question. That wrong answer is based on a rumour that places the military as primarily responsible for the stalled democratisation,” says Qarni.
This may sound reasonable, given the Syrian army’s protection of the Assad regime and the Egyptian army’s role in Morsi’s ousting. Military intervention is a symptom of “faltering”, but is in no way the cause of it. The main reason is the failure of political parties to establish a sound governing institution and direct it towards democracy.
What happened to the groups and the youth who initiated the Arab Spring, and of the Islamists and political Islam movements?
The youth fuelled the Arab Spring with unprecedented explosive energy, acting through their own organisations such as Kifaya in Egypt and syndicates in Tunisia. They went straight to the point, asking for the removal of their presidents, but their lack of an agenda facilitated counter-revolutionary components.
By contrast, the Islamist groups in Egypt have followers among the people and are experienced in political matters, allowing them to win both parliamentary and presidential elections and thus take control of Egypt.
Instead of using their power to create a governing national coalition, they monopolised it. Their lack of the skills to run the country empowered the opposition and led to their failure.
“The two main groups have failed in facing the challenges raised by the democratisation process,” considers Qarni.
They were unable to establish a strong and extensive national coalition and to implement a plan that would efficiently lead the country out of the transitional phase. Is there any alternative to a national coalition, he asks, and what is the best way to reach it now?
Elections provide time for change in Algeria
Algeria can offer a different example within the chaotic Arab landscape if it sees the April 17 presidential elections as a golden opportunity, suggested Tunisian journalist Mohamed Krishan in the pan-Arab paper Al Quds Al Arabi.
The elections will provide an excellent opportunity for a smooth political transition and will spare the country the fear that peaceful change is no longer achievable, he observed.
Former presidents Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen could have avoided what happened to them if their citizens had retained a glimmer of hope for fair elections without the presidents or their sons running for president. As for Muammar Qaddafi in Libya and Bashar Al Assad in Syria, such a thought would have never crossed their minds. The former had to be killed before relinquishing control, while the latter is allowing his country to be destroyed to retain power.
The turmoil that followed the toppling of those tyrants might push Algerians and others to favour calculated gradual reform rather than opening the door to the unknown. This is particularly true for Algerians who experienced 10 horrible years of a civil war, leaving them apprehensive of change that could shake the foundations of the state or allow the army to hold absolute power, having covertly wielding it for decades.
Isil was created to hit the Syrian uprising
The Syrian regime’s attempt to use the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) in the conflict has fallen flat, wrote Saudi writer Abdulaziz Al Tuwaijri in the London-based daily Asharq Al Awsat.
Isil is a suspicious organisation that was fabricated for destructive purposes in the region and its attacks have targeted Iraq, Syria and southern sections of Beirut.
It would not have been that easy for Isil to reach the stronghold of Hizbollah, which is a strong ally of the Syrian regime and Iran, if it was not of their own making, the writer contended.
Isil’s attacks in the southern suburbs of Beirut came as battles raged in Syrian territory between Isil and the Free Syrian Army and other opposition fighters. It became clear that the Syrian regime was exposed and cornered, so elements of Isil were sent to Beirut to stage a blast in Hizbollah’s stronghold.
The aim was to make Hizbollah seem a victim of terrorist groups and therefore provide justification for it fighting alongside the Assad regime against the people demanding freedom. It also sought to dispel the doubts surrounding Hizbollah’s “resistance” and “militancy”.
It has become clear that Isil has been created only to hit the Syrian popular uprising, the writer concluded.
* Digest compiled by The Translation Desk
translation@thenational.ae
