The Arab Spring: an Interim Review
In late 2010, a surge of popular uprisings started sweeping the Arab world. More than seven years after, identifying the Arab Spring with democratization processes appears to have been wishful thinking more than a rational analysis – and the Arab world has not only failed to develop in the direction of democracy but has even distanced itself from it
Dr. Shaul Shay
| 16/02/2018
Anti-government protesters in Morocco (Photo: AP)
Seven years have passed since a surge of popular uprisings, which subsequently became known in the West as the Arab Spring, started sweeping the Arab world.
Although the Middle East is still undergoing processes of change and upheaval, it may be stated that a substantial part of the assumptions presented by researchers and commentators with regard to the substance and nature of the changes taking place in the Middle East have failed the test of reality. This article presents and analyzes some of these assumptions and reviews the actual status picture of the Middle East at the present time.
The Popular Desire for Democracy
With the outbreak of the popular uprisings in the Arab world, statesmen and researchers hastened to crown those uprisings with a name possessing a positive and optimistic connotation – "The Arab Spring." According to them, the Arab Spring heralded the imminent end of the oppressive, tyrannical regimes and the replacement thereof by democratic regimes.
Popular protest for democracy, whose foundations are in the secular and liberal elements which, in most cases, represent only a minority within Arab society, might be "robbed" by the Islamist elements, which constitute a powerful and highly influential factor within that society. The most prominent example of this phenomenon is Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement in Egypt succeeded in ascending to power through democratic elections, but failed to consolidate their rule and were ousted a year later. The Arab Spring revolutions reflect, to a considerable extent, the weakness of civil society in the Arab world and how difficult it is for this society to adopt the values of democracy and the modern world.
In retrospect, it seems that identifying the Arab Spring with democratization processes was wishful thinking more than a rational analysis, and the Arab world has not only failed to develop in the direction of democracy, but has even distanced itself from it in comparison to the situation that preceded the outbreak of the Arab Spring uprisings. The only place where buds of democracy may be identified is Tunisia, but that democracy is fragile and it is still too early to determine whether it would survive the continued regional upheavals.
With regard to countries where attempts had been made to change the dictatorial regime, the interim balance is fairly dismal: in Libya, Gaddafi was eliminated, but a civil war broke out whose end is nowhere in sight. In Egypt, Mubarak did lose his throne – only to be replaced by another military ruler, General el-Sisi. In Syria, it seems that Bashar al-Assad remained on his throne and in Yemen, President Ali Abdullah Saleh was ousted but made a pact with his former enemies, the Houthis, and struggled for years to return to power. In December 2017, Saleh was eliminated by the Houthi rebels who claimed that he had shifted his support to Saudi Arabia.
There is no doubt that the rulers of the Arab world are currently aware of the power of the masses and consolidate the tools that would enable them to safeguard their rule. These tools include initiating political moves intended to minimize internal tensions, enacting statutes against the media and imposing restrictions on the freedom of speech, forbidding demonstrations and confronting events that endanger their regimes while they are being conceived.
One could have assumed that the religious and ethnic minorities in the Arab world would be among the significant proponents of democracy that would have guaranteed their rights. However, the religious and ethnic minorities turned out to be the primary victims of radical Islam and so, in line with considerations of survival, they preferred the secular tyrannical regimes over political Islam or Salafist Islam, as they felt safer and more secure under those oppressive regimes.
The End of the Arab Nation-State
Apparently, it was too early to mourn the Arab nation-states. Admittedly, four Arab countries (Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen) are currently undergoing civil wars that include damaging processes leading to the disintegration of state institutions – but they may be reconstructed. Moreover, the international and regional systems appear to prevent changes to the boundaries and sovereignty of existing countries and to favor military and diplomatic resolutions of the controversies that form the foundation for the violence in the context of the nation-states.
The End of the Sykes-Picot Borders
In the years 2014-2017, the Islamic State organization established the new Caliphate in the territories of Iraq and Syria, and for the first time obliterated one of the borders originally delineated in the context of the Sykes-Picot agreement. Assuming that the Islamic State will expand its boundaries, analysts and commentators further presumed that other borders would change, and announced the demise of the Sykes-Picot borders. This was a hasty presumption, as it was the Islamic State, not the borders, that was eventually obliterated from the map of the Middle East, and the border between Iraq and Syria was restored. Moreover, the international and regional systems currently prevent the Kurds from establishing an independent state of their own, or any other change to the Sykes-Picot borders.
Today's dominant external powers, Russia and the USA, are the ones that actually safeguard the Sykes-Picot borders and prevent them from being breached. Despite the fact that the feeling that Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon are artificial states that were established by the colonial powers has remained valid, the intention of the superpowers to avoid any changes to those borders will necessitate the use of solutions that may be implemented within the existing borders. A federation/confederation are possible alternatives whose suitability to the countries of the region may be examined while redistributing the political power and resources among the elements that would make up the federal states.
The Era of Radical Islamist Domination
Following the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood Movement in the elections for the Egyptian Parliament and Presidency and the ascent to power of the Ennahdha Movement in Tunisia, commentators hastened to point out the emergence of a new era where the Middle East will be governed by radical Islamist movements. The establishment of the Islamic Caliphate by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi even reinforced this claim.
These theories were soon refuted, however, when a revolution led by the military put an end to the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The Ennahdha Movement lost its political power in Tunisia, and after three years of war, an international coalition succeeded in obliterating the Islamic Caliphate from the map of the Middle East.
The Survival of the Arab Monarchies
One of the most notable phenomena in the context of the Arab Spring is the survival of the Arab monarchies, which have thus far managed to endure the regional upheavals successfully. Although there is no unequivocal explanation for this phenomenon, several analyses have been suggested.
The legitimacy of the royal houses: Arab monarchs, particularly by virtue of religious linkages and tradition, were more legitimate in the eyes of their respective societies than the rulers of the Arab republics.
Islamic religious law addresses the question of when it is permissible to overthrow a ruler and generally forbids it. At the same time, however, Islamic law allows, subject to certain criteria, the replacement of a ruler by a more suitable ruler – but only within the existing form of government.
Russia's Return to the Middle East
Russia's intervention in the war in Syria for the purpose of saving Assad's regime changed the rules of the game and marks the end of US hegemony in the Middle East, as well as the beginning of a renewed struggle between the superpowers over influence in the region. The Russian move in Syria was concluded successfully and the coalition led by Russia, in which Iran participated along with Assad's regime and Hezbollah, currently dictates the future of Syria.
Iran – the Big Winner
Over the years of the Arab Spring, a reshuffle took place in Iran, too, through the general elections, and in June 2013 President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had completed a second term in office, was replaced by the candidate of the more moderate public – Hassan Rouhani.
Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, and the leaders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) realized that the worsening economic crisis brought about by the sanctions imposed on Iran because of the nuclear program, as well as the longstanding oppression of the Iranian citizenry, could break down the barrier of fear, as was the case in the Arab countries, and endanger the regime. Against this background, supreme leader Ali Khamenei ordered the new President to reach an agreement that would lead to the lifting of the sanctions imposed on Iran on the one hand, while retaining the nuclear option for Iran on the other hand. President Rouhani succeeded in accomplishing the complex task assigned to him.
At the same time, Iran intensified its involvement in various countries in the region (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen) and became the primary element in the war against the Islamic State. Iran supplied state-of-the-art weapon systems, military advisors, Hezbollah troops and Shi'ite militia forces that actually saved the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria and led to victory over the Islamic State in Iraq and to significant accomplishments by the Houthi rebels in Yemen. These successes led to the emergence of the Shi'ite Crescent in the Middle East, on the basis of a territorial continuity of Iranian influence and domination, extending from Tehran to the Mediterranean.
The Saudi-Iranian Conflict
Another notable Middle Eastern phenomenon is the escalation of the confrontation between the Shi'ite axis led by Iran (and backed by Moscow) and the Sunni axis led by Riyadh. Iran operates in the context of this confrontation mainly through Shi'ite militia forces it had established, notably Hezbollah.
In the last few years, Saudi Arabia has adopted a proactive foreign policy in its struggle against the Shi'ite axis.
In September 2014, the Houthi rebels, supported by Iran, and the forces loyal to former President Saleh, captured the city of Sanaa and expanded their domination to the other areas of Yemen. Following the capture of Sanaa by the rebels, acting President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi fled south to the Sunni-dominated provinces, and then to Saudi Arabia. The dramatic change in the internal balance of power in Yemen compelled Saudi Arabia, which had regarded Yemen as its own backyard for many years, to actively reinstate President Hadi, regarded as an ally of the Saudis, to power. For this purpose, the Saudis rallied and assembled a coalition of nine additional countries: Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, Morocco, Senegal, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain. On March 25, 2015, the coalition led by Saudi Arabia launched Operation Resolute Storm with the purpose of preventing the Houthis and their allies from dominating the country and reinstating former President Hadi to power. For now, the war in Yemen is still raging, and it is still too early to determine which side will have the upper hand.
Risks & Opportunities for Israel
The Government of Israel has maintained a calculated policy whose three pillars are avoiding any intervention in the conflicts within the Arab countries; consolidating a policy of 'Red Lines' and adhering to it; providing humanitarian aid where possible.
Israel managed to maintain the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan despite the upheavals the region has undergone and despite the changes of regime in Egypt (the collapse of Mubarak's regime, the ascent to power and subsequent fall of the Muslim Brotherhood and the ascent to power of President el-Sisi).
The Arab Spring improved the geo-strategic status of Israel and stressed the interests that are common to Israel and the block of Sunni countries led by Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
In view of the upheavals the Middle East underwent, the Palestinian problem is no longer the top priority in the eyes of the Arab world. It has, however, remained a major obstacle to the development of Israel's connections with the Arab countries and to the utilization of the historic window of opportunity that could enable recognition and reconciliation with the Arab and Muslim world (on the basis of the Arab peace initiative), with the blessing of the USA.
In late 2010, a surge of popular uprisings started sweeping the Arab world. More than seven years after, identifying the Arab Spring with democratization processes appears to have been wishful thinking more than a rational analysis – and the Arab world has not only failed to develop in the direction of democracy but has even distanced itself from it
Anti-government protesters in Morocco (Photo: AP)
Seven years have passed since a surge of popular uprisings, which subsequently became known in the West as the Arab Spring, started sweeping the Arab world.
Although the Middle East is still undergoing processes of change and upheaval, it may be stated that a substantial part of the assumptions presented by researchers and commentators with regard to the substance and nature of the changes taking place in the Middle East have failed the test of reality. This article presents and analyzes some of these assumptions and reviews the actual status picture of the Middle East at the present time.
The Popular Desire for Democracy
With the outbreak of the popular uprisings in the Arab world, statesmen and researchers hastened to crown those uprisings with a name possessing a positive and optimistic connotation – "The Arab Spring." According to them, the Arab Spring heralded the imminent end of the oppressive, tyrannical regimes and the replacement thereof by democratic regimes.
Popular protest for democracy, whose foundations are in the secular and liberal elements which, in most cases, represent only a minority within Arab society, might be "robbed" by the Islamist elements, which constitute a powerful and highly influential factor within that society. The most prominent example of this phenomenon is Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement in Egypt succeeded in ascending to power through democratic elections, but failed to consolidate their rule and were ousted a year later. The Arab Spring revolutions reflect, to a considerable extent, the weakness of civil society in the Arab world and how difficult it is for this society to adopt the values of democracy and the modern world.
In retrospect, it seems that identifying the Arab Spring with democratization processes was wishful thinking more than a rational analysis, and the Arab world has not only failed to develop in the direction of democracy, but has even distanced itself from it in comparison to the situation that preceded the outbreak of the Arab Spring uprisings. The only place where buds of democracy may be identified is Tunisia, but that democracy is fragile and it is still too early to determine whether it would survive the continued regional upheavals.
With regard to countries where attempts had been made to change the dictatorial regime, the interim balance is fairly dismal: in Libya, Gaddafi was eliminated, but a civil war broke out whose end is nowhere in sight. In Egypt, Mubarak did lose his throne – only to be replaced by another military ruler, General el-Sisi. In Syria, it seems that Bashar al-Assad remained on his throne and in Yemen, President Ali Abdullah Saleh was ousted but made a pact with his former enemies, the Houthis, and struggled for years to return to power. In December 2017, Saleh was eliminated by the Houthi rebels who claimed that he had shifted his support to Saudi Arabia.
There is no doubt that the rulers of the Arab world are currently aware of the power of the masses and consolidate the tools that would enable them to safeguard their rule. These tools include initiating political moves intended to minimize internal tensions, enacting statutes against the media and imposing restrictions on the freedom of speech, forbidding demonstrations and confronting events that endanger their regimes while they are being conceived.
One could have assumed that the religious and ethnic minorities in the Arab world would be among the significant proponents of democracy that would have guaranteed their rights. However, the religious and ethnic minorities turned out to be the primary victims of radical Islam and so, in line with considerations of survival, they preferred the secular tyrannical regimes over political Islam or Salafist Islam, as they felt safer and more secure under those oppressive regimes.
The End of the Arab Nation-State
Apparently, it was too early to mourn the Arab nation-states. Admittedly, four Arab countries (Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen) are currently undergoing civil wars that include damaging processes leading to the disintegration of state institutions – but they may be reconstructed. Moreover, the international and regional systems appear to prevent changes to the boundaries and sovereignty of existing countries and to favor military and diplomatic resolutions of the controversies that form the foundation for the violence in the context of the nation-states.
The End of the Sykes-Picot Borders
In the years 2014-2017, the Islamic State organization established the new Caliphate in the territories of Iraq and Syria, and for the first time obliterated one of the borders originally delineated in the context of the Sykes-Picot agreement. Assuming that the Islamic State will expand its boundaries, analysts and commentators further presumed that other borders would change, and announced the demise of the Sykes-Picot borders. This was a hasty presumption, as it was the Islamic State, not the borders, that was eventually obliterated from the map of the Middle East, and the border between Iraq and Syria was restored. Moreover, the international and regional systems currently prevent the Kurds from establishing an independent state of their own, or any other change to the Sykes-Picot borders.
Today's dominant external powers, Russia and the USA, are the ones that actually safeguard the Sykes-Picot borders and prevent them from being breached. Despite the fact that the feeling that Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon are artificial states that were established by the colonial powers has remained valid, the intention of the superpowers to avoid any changes to those borders will necessitate the use of solutions that may be implemented within the existing borders. A federation/confederation are possible alternatives whose suitability to the countries of the region may be examined while redistributing the political power and resources among the elements that would make up the federal states.
The Era of Radical Islamist Domination
Following the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood Movement in the elections for the Egyptian Parliament and Presidency and the ascent to power of the Ennahdha Movement in Tunisia, commentators hastened to point out the emergence of a new era where the Middle East will be governed by radical Islamist movements. The establishment of the Islamic Caliphate by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi even reinforced this claim.
These theories were soon refuted, however, when a revolution led by the military put an end to the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The Ennahdha Movement lost its political power in Tunisia, and after three years of war, an international coalition succeeded in obliterating the Islamic Caliphate from the map of the Middle East.
The Survival of the Arab Monarchies
One of the most notable phenomena in the context of the Arab Spring is the survival of the Arab monarchies, which have thus far managed to endure the regional upheavals successfully. Although there is no unequivocal explanation for this phenomenon, several analyses have been suggested.
The legitimacy of the royal houses: Arab monarchs, particularly by virtue of religious linkages and tradition, were more legitimate in the eyes of their respective societies than the rulers of the Arab republics.
Islamic religious law addresses the question of when it is permissible to overthrow a ruler and generally forbids it. At the same time, however, Islamic law allows, subject to certain criteria, the replacement of a ruler by a more suitable ruler – but only within the existing form of government.
Russia's Return to the Middle East
Russia's intervention in the war in Syria for the purpose of saving Assad's regime changed the rules of the game and marks the end of US hegemony in the Middle East, as well as the beginning of a renewed struggle between the superpowers over influence in the region. The Russian move in Syria was concluded successfully and the coalition led by Russia, in which Iran participated along with Assad's regime and Hezbollah, currently dictates the future of Syria.
Iran – the Big Winner
Over the years of the Arab Spring, a reshuffle took place in Iran, too, through the general elections, and in June 2013 President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had completed a second term in office, was replaced by the candidate of the more moderate public – Hassan Rouhani.
Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, and the leaders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) realized that the worsening economic crisis brought about by the sanctions imposed on Iran because of the nuclear program, as well as the longstanding oppression of the Iranian citizenry, could break down the barrier of fear, as was the case in the Arab countries, and endanger the regime. Against this background, supreme leader Ali Khamenei ordered the new President to reach an agreement that would lead to the lifting of the sanctions imposed on Iran on the one hand, while retaining the nuclear option for Iran on the other hand. President Rouhani succeeded in accomplishing the complex task assigned to him.
At the same time, Iran intensified its involvement in various countries in the region (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen) and became the primary element in the war against the Islamic State. Iran supplied state-of-the-art weapon systems, military advisors, Hezbollah troops and Shi'ite militia forces that actually saved the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria and led to victory over the Islamic State in Iraq and to significant accomplishments by the Houthi rebels in Yemen. These successes led to the emergence of the Shi'ite Crescent in the Middle East, on the basis of a territorial continuity of Iranian influence and domination, extending from Tehran to the Mediterranean.
The Saudi-Iranian Conflict
Another notable Middle Eastern phenomenon is the escalation of the confrontation between the Shi'ite axis led by Iran (and backed by Moscow) and the Sunni axis led by Riyadh. Iran operates in the context of this confrontation mainly through Shi'ite militia forces it had established, notably Hezbollah.
In the last few years, Saudi Arabia has adopted a proactive foreign policy in its struggle against the Shi'ite axis.
In September 2014, the Houthi rebels, supported by Iran, and the forces loyal to former President Saleh, captured the city of Sanaa and expanded their domination to the other areas of Yemen. Following the capture of Sanaa by the rebels, acting President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi fled south to the Sunni-dominated provinces, and then to Saudi Arabia. The dramatic change in the internal balance of power in Yemen compelled Saudi Arabia, which had regarded Yemen as its own backyard for many years, to actively reinstate President Hadi, regarded as an ally of the Saudis, to power. For this purpose, the Saudis rallied and assembled a coalition of nine additional countries: Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, Morocco, Senegal, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain. On March 25, 2015, the coalition led by Saudi Arabia launched Operation Resolute Storm with the purpose of preventing the Houthis and their allies from dominating the country and reinstating former President Hadi to power. For now, the war in Yemen is still raging, and it is still too early to determine which side will have the upper hand.
Risks & Opportunities for Israel
The Government of Israel has maintained a calculated policy whose three pillars are avoiding any intervention in the conflicts within the Arab countries; consolidating a policy of 'Red Lines' and adhering to it; providing humanitarian aid where possible.
Israel managed to maintain the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan despite the upheavals the region has undergone and despite the changes of regime in Egypt (the collapse of Mubarak's regime, the ascent to power and subsequent fall of the Muslim Brotherhood and the ascent to power of President el-Sisi).
The Arab Spring improved the geo-strategic status of Israel and stressed the interests that are common to Israel and the block of Sunni countries led by Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
In view of the upheavals the Middle East underwent, the Palestinian problem is no longer the top priority in the eyes of the Arab world. It has, however, remained a major obstacle to the development of Israel's connections with the Arab countries and to the utilization of the historic window of opportunity that could enable recognition and reconciliation with the Arab and Muslim world (on the basis of the Arab peace initiative), with the blessing of the USA.
