Day after day, it is becoming increasingly clear that Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh relinquishing power, despite how positive and necessary it was, has neither put a stop to the chaos experienced by Yemen at the political and security levels, nor produced a solution that would be based on rebuilding the state on new foundations – as had been asserted repeatedly and relentlessly by the opposition, which has now become part of the transitional government. In fact, the crises facing this country are worsening, threats to its unity and sovereignty are increasing, and further parts of its territory are escaping the influence of the central government and being subjected to the rule of the Al-Qaeda organization and its supporters, who have turned out to be numerous and active. This does not mean that Saleh should have stayed – knowing that, had he not been convinced that staying would have been futile, he would not have stepped down – but rather addresses the crisis faced by members of the opposition, who have so far not given their public in particular, and their fellow citizens in general, the impression that they are capable of shaping a model better than the one that had been standing. In fact, on the contrary, political disputes have now come to affect every matter, great and small, in the life of Yemenis; divisions, both horizontal and vertical, are eating away at society and its elites; and quarreling has become the dominant feature of discussion over any issue that should unite Yemenis. Thus, solutions are being obstructed and problems are piling up. This is how the bloody attacks waged by Al-Qaeda, and to which hundreds of soldiers and citizens are falling victim, turn into pretexts for mutually exchanged accusations and superficial quarrels between the parties gathered into the “national unity government” and between centers of power within the armed forces – instead of the threat of such attacks representing an incentive for consensus, and defending against them being a national task from which no political party or group would be excluded. In parallel to this, “Change Square” in the heart of Sanaa, which has turned into a symbol of the protests against Saleh's rule, has been witnessing repeated clashes between groups of protesters, resulting in dozens of casualties every time –increasing the doubts of citizens over the wisdom of maintaining protest squares after their principle demand has been met. All this while economic and food-related problems become more acute, and while the numbers of Yemenis in need of immediate support multiply, according to United Nations estimates. Meanwhile, the Americans and the rest of the world only see one problem, that of Al-Qaeda, and are uninterested in any resolution unless it is coupled with “combating terrorism”. Such acute political division reflects on Yemen's ability to obtain aid from friendly countries, which now hesitate to provide such aid, out of fear that it would in turn become a problem, instead of contributing to a solution. One might say that the experience of the Yemeni opposition cannot yet be judged, because it has only been a short time since it begun to participate in government. However, as the saying goes, “one can read a letter from its title”. Indeed, one cannot reunite Yemen and Yemenis with policies of deceit and of digging up past violations, because no one is innocent of these, and no one can claim honesty and a clear conscience – and also because national reconciliation requires everyone to bear with their wounds and move to thinking of the broader national interest. The problem of the Yemeni opposition goes beyond its geographical framework to clearly reflect the crisis of opposition movements in the other Arab countries that have witnessed a change in their political rule. Indeed, confusion continues to dominate the situation in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, and acute divisions persist between the constituents of the new regimes, in a manner that does not portend stability in the near future.
