In each country, the uprisings had distinctive qualities but there were also common strands. Photo / AP
In each country, the uprisings had distinctive qualities but there were also common strands. Photo / AP
No event so confounded predictions this year as the Arab Spring. Its very arrival stunned those who had assumed the long-standing autocratic regimes of North Africa and the Middle East retained a solid grip on power. Then widespread expectations that the movement would sweep all before it proved unfounded assome rulers resisted the tide of protest. It is little wonder that few are now ready to deliver a definitive pronouncement on what will happen next.
By the end of the year, however, what had started in Tunisia with the toppling of President Zine El Abidine had also claimed his counterparts in Egypt and Libya. And three regimes east of the Suez Canal - Yemen, Bahrain and Syria - remained in turmoil, with Sunni-Shia rivalry adding a further dimension to the struggles there.
In each country, the uprisings had distinctive qualities but there were also common strands. These were not ideological movements. If there was once a time when Islamists thought they could seize power on their own, it had passed. Now, they stood side by side with secularists, united by a deeply entrenched sense of injustice and frustration. In their sights were the regimes of rulers such as Hosni Mubarak, in Egypt, and Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, which had claimed power on a nationalist wave but progressively succumbed to corruption and nepotism.
The success of the protesters' demand for self-determination raised a whole new set of problems, not least for the West. The disparate nature of the demonstrators made it unclear who would emerge victorious from elections. The fear of the West and of Israel, whose President, Benjamin Netanyahu, said, misguidedly, that the Arab world was "moving backward, not forward", was that Islamic fundamentalists would be triumphant.
This concern has hardly been eased by the outcome of parliamentary polls in Egypt, the most pivotal and populous country of the Arab Spring uprisings. There, the Muslim Brotherhood has been confirmed as easily the biggest single party. It, however, has already offered assurances that it has no desire to impose sharia law or cancel Egypt's treaty with Israel. Indeed, it probably has little option but to be moderate given the non-ideological basis of the protests and the country's strong secularist and commercial strain, a legacy of the Mubarak regime.
Either way, the West has no option but to engage with the newly democratic states of North Africa and the Middle East. If its reputation in the region had been tarnished by business deals with autocratic rulers that paid no heed to their human rights abuses, it, at least, gained some kudos through its military intervention in Libya. This proved the crucial element in Gaddafi's downfall.
Unfortunately, several factors, not least Iran's strong interest, meant a campaign of aerial strikes could not be extended to Syria, where Bashar al-Assad has responded to demonstrators with prolonged brutality. That country appears headed for an extended period of instability. But the tyrants still clinging to power know their violent retaliation is now being broadcast far and wide, galvanising, rather than cowing, opponents. Twelve months ago, they thought themselves invincible. Now, their hold on power is precarious.
If it is foolhardy to make bold predictions about the outcome of the Arab Spring, it is reasonable to be somewhat optimistic. Democracy should be the catalyst for a more prosperous future and improved living standards for those who have already thrown off the shackles of despotism and decrepitude.
There is also a greater chance to settle the Palestinian conflict. But only if the United States, especially, sees opportunities in the Arab Spring, not obstacles.
