If you were to call a friend in Algeria, you'd find him interpreting the situation in his country and the steps taken by the authorities there in light of the Egyptian revolution. If you were to call a friend in Jordan, he'd reply that the forces that obstructed reform throughout the past decade will be unable to continue doing so. Reform is inescapable, and at a fast pace. Dialogue must be broadened, without excluding anyone. It is obvious that the speaker is interpreting the Egyptian revolution. If you were to call a friend in Yemen, he would hastily say that if President Hosni Moubarak had closed two years ago the files of renewing the mandate and passing on the presidency to his son, he wouldn't be having to close them under the pressure of protests. He would say that the announcement of President Ali Abdullah Saleh that he won't be a candidate in the coming presidential elections and that the issue of passing on the presidency to his son isn't on the table, has reduced the dangers threatening his regime and restored some of his ability to deal with them. It seems obvious that the speaker, like the president, based himself on the lessons learned from the Egyptian revolution. The Egyptian days have burdened the region's capitals. They have occupied the mind of the ordinary citizen, who didn't need any reminder that the questions asked in Egypt are also asked in other countries, while taking into account the differences and particularities of course. Presumably, these days also occupy the minds of decision-makers, with the ongoing flow of events and questions. How can the transfer of the symptoms of the “Egyptian days” to this or that capital be prevented? I have a feeling that this question is asked in many places. I imagine that it occupies the minds of the officials, politicians, and party members. I hope it also worries advisors. Any follower [of the news] is entitled to ask: did the advisors and concerned persons convey the true image of the Egyptian society's situation to President Moubarak? The tension constituted no secret. Anyone visiting Cairo could feel it from the hotel they were staying at and from the subjects tackled by the opposition's newspapers. Perhaps the first lesson learned from the “Egyptian days” is that bathing in peace of mind opens the gates of danger; that sleeping on the silk of rosy reports by the intelligence services and advisors prevents the decision-maker from being connected with the pulse of the street and the citizens; that dealing with anyone who asks for reform, development, or change as if he were a conspirator controlled by foreign hands leads to shutting of the horizon before the wind, which then turns with time into a storm or a hurricane. The second lesson is that the wind can be started by young people who were not lured by the slogans and methods of the traditional opposition. Hence, I believe that this phenomenon should worry these same parties that are also supposed to review their options and ideas. Convincing these young people requires a true dialogue and the opening of windows, as well as concrete steps supported by figures. It is vital to confront poverty, unemployment, and corruption, and to let society take part in drafting policies and making them succeed. The third lesson is that the security solutions alone have shortcomings, and worsen the stalemate in the absence of comprehensive solutions. It is doubtless that the “Egyptian days” have stirred concern in many places. According to the US Secretary of State, the Middle East is facing a “storm of unrest”. The question is: how can concern be turned into an opportunity to launch comprehensive reforms without which stability cannot be achieved, even if they seem to be a bitter medicine? Indeed, bitter medicine is better than falling in the storm.
