When the Arab awakening began in 2011, its primary goal should have been to advance pluralism and democracy — causes that were neglected in the Arab world’s first, anti-colonial awakening in the 20th century. However, after three years of struggle, the process has only just begun. Will the second Arab awakening finally achieve its goals?
The answer depends on which of three models Arab countries use to guide their transition: an inclusive, far-sighted model that aims to build consensus; a winner-takes-all approach that excludes large segments of the population; or a stop-at-nothing approach focused on regime survival.
These models reflect the vast differences among Arab countries’ circumstances and prospects for the future.
The strongest example of the inclusive model is Tunisia, where former opponents have formed a coalition government, without military interference.
Of course, the process was not easy. However, after a tense struggle, Tunisians recognized that cooperation was the only way forward.
In February, Tunisia adopted the Arab world’s most progressive constitution, which establishes equality between men and women, provides for peaceful alternation of government and recognizes the right of citizens to be without religious belief — an unprecedented move in the region, supported by both Islamist and secular forces. Tunisia’s experience embodies the commitment to pluralism and democracy for which the second Arab awakening stands.
Fortunately, Tunisia is not alone in following this path.
Both Yemen and Morocco have undertaken a relatively inclusive political process, with Yemen pursuing a national dialogue and Morocco forming a coalition government.
This model had failed to take hold in several other countries.
Consider Egypt, which has been pursuing the second, exclusionary approach, with all parties believing that they have a monopoly on the truth and thus can ignore or suppress their opponents. Egypt’s Islamists, led by the Muslim Brotherhood, adopted this philosophy while they were in power; the secular forces that ousted them in July last year’s military coup are now taking the same approach.
In short, Egyptian politics has become a zero-sum game — and the sum has truly been zero.
The country remains plagued by security threats, economic chaos and political instability — problems of such a scale that neither camp can solve them alone. If leaders on both sides do not begin to work together, Egypt’s awakening will remain a distant dream, with ordinary citizens suffering the social and economic consequences.
However, it is the third approach — exemplified by Syria — that is the most destructive.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime will stop at nothing to win what has become a game of survival.
Meanwhile, the opposition remains fragmented, leaving a security vacuum that radical groups — made up largely of foreign fighters — have been exploiting. The result has been a horrific civil war, which has already led to at least 150,000 deaths and forced millions to flee their homes, with no end in sight.
The stark differences between these three models and their outcomes offer a clear lesson: Inclusiveness is the only route to stability. With the right approach, any country can succeed in building a better future.
Of course, the path taken by the second Arab awakening has not been defined entirely by national boundaries.
Long-held taboos have been eased throughout the Arab world.
Specifically, the two forces that have long dominated the political scene — secular, often military or military-backed rulers, and the religious opposition — have lost their unassailable status; today, they are increasingly subject to the kind of criticism that characterizes democratic systems. In many Arab countries, it is even acceptable to be a liberal.
However, while the rigid social systems that long impeded progress have broken down in many Arab countries over the past three years, with liberalism becoming a more acceptable worldview, the experiences of Egypt and Syria demonstrate that the goals of the second Arab awakening are not universally shared.
Old rivalries, ideological preoccupations and unproductive habits continue to block efforts to find real solutions to socioeconomic problems.
Arab societies deserve better. As Tunisia has shown, if they embrace the politics of pluralism and inclusiveness, they will get it.
Marwan Muasher, a former Jordanian minister of foreign affairs and former Jordanian deputy prime minister, is vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS