'After me, the flood'… from Tunisia to Syria

The Arab revolution did not come out of nothing. Collapsed regimes invested in security instead of real development and how to distribute the wealth rather than restricting it to the ruling family and their direct surroundings. Hence what happened was more than natural. However, still there are those who believe that the Arab revolutions are a step backward and that the pre-revolution situation in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Syria was supposed to continue forever. Isn't the "Assad forever" slogan lifted all over Syria? Moreover, those who advocate this theory believe that whatever happened is destabilising the region. This may be true to some extent. But if we consider what happened in these countries, we'll find that the blast was more than normal and Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Syria are likely to go through a transitional stage which could pave the way for establishing a civil state and could also lead to dismantling their regimes. Certainly, a failed state is considered a disaster for the Arab situation as a whole, as it opens ways for civil wars whose result is unknown in the absence of the possibility of consensual divorce between warring regimes. Its seems that the revolutions as the "Arab Spring" are more than normal. This is due to a very simple reason represented in the need for a change after citizens got fed up with discrimination practiced against them at all levels. In Tunisia, for example, there was relative success on the economic level, according to the internationally recognised numbers which made Tunisia closer to losing its status as a developing country, ie countries of the so-called Third World. But the problem of Zine El Abidine ben Ali, who ruled the country from 1987 to 2011, as well as underestimating politics and politicians and the uniqueness of power, lies in stooping to the desires of his wife, Leila Trabelsi. Leila Trabelsi changed her family into an affluent one to whom laws of the country did not apply. The laws which were applied to all citizens excluded the members of the ruling family! Ben Ali eliminated the ambitions of a large number of Tunisians who were supposed to defend his regime, due to his short-sightedness and acquiescing his wife's wishes. He fell the victim of the succession, originally thoguht to be the ambitious wife who acted as the guardian of Tunisia. The result was that all of society, including the armed forces, revolted against the family which was no longer in touch with Tunisia's reality. What Tunisia underwent applied to a large extent in Egypt where Hosni Mubarak was a captive of his wife's desires and those surrounding her. Suzanne, who did not understand the nature of the Egypt's regime for a moment, was incapable of realising that the military institution refuses inheritance. Her concerns were restricted to not be another Jihan Sadat, and this was after experiencing what had happened to the widow of President Anwar Sadat following his assassination in October, 1981 and after her husband replaced his place. What distinguished Ben Ali and Mubarak is their fall as detainees in the hands of their families. What is common between them is the inability to think about the future and about how to build a state that has no relation with a particular person or family. Mubarak was never aware that Egypt was facing challenges of a different kind; on top of that was population growth, religious extremism and the building of democratic institutions, and that without facing these challenges things would be on the verge of significant deterioration, whether Gamal took over or not. As for Libya, madness prevailed. There was no logic of any type. Until now it is unknown if Gaddafi was seeking to hand over power to his son Seif al-Islam or he was jealous of him. In any case, it seems proven that Gaddafi, the father, was worshipping none but himself, and believed that Libya started with him and would end with him. Perhaps he succeeded in achieving what he had dreamed of, and the evidence is that no one is able to predict Libya’s future except that the oil wells will continue to operate at full capacity, for reasons that have nothing to do with the Libyans, but with the European and American interests, no more. In Yemen, there is a different situation. There is a very complicated situation and Ali Abdullah Saleh realised his inability to solve it. He allegedly left power while conveniently leaving the nation's problems in the hands of his opponents. They will have to deal with a set of problems that are enough to turn Yemen into another Somalia. These problems begin with the devastating economy and the population growth and end with the al-Qaeda's terrorism,  and Houthis and restive conditions of the south. Syria’s problem is a combination of the problems of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen. It is enough that the president does not want to confess that he is facing a real people’s revolution and that he has nothing more to offer to the country than prolonging the crisis and turning it into a civil war of a pure doctrinal nature. The question is no longer whether the Syrian regime has ended or not. The question is: What will become of Syria? And is there any room to avoid the repetition of the Iraqi experience in Syria, that its people are still raising the slogan “The Syrian People are One”, and insists on clinging to it? There was no room to avoid the “Arab Spring” after all the ruling regimes had done to their people. Is there room to avoid the collapse of certain Arab countries whose rulers raise the slogan “After me, the flood”? It seems to be not just a slogan. It's an integrated theory primarily based on contempt for certain systems towards the Arab people the insisting to humiliate them.