On the occasion of the Olympics, one might observe the champion runners as they race the wind for new medals, just like the new democracies in Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco, which are bracing for a set-off without looking back. Sports constitutes a challenge to highlight one's special abilities. Similarly, the democratic competitions represent a race of ideas, programs and aspirations that also lead to a winner and a loser. Those who hesitate, lose focus, or cheat cannot proceed further. So far, confusion represents the common denominator between some of these experiences either because of the need to dissipate people's fears with respect to the use of the democratic authority in its right place; or due to the shock that resulted from the shift in positions from the sidewalk of the opposition to the actual pyramid of power; or for the purpose of demonstrating the presence of good intentions and the abstinence from drifting behind radical changes that would bring about trouble both on the internal and external levels. One relevant example is that the Moroccan Prime Minister, Abdelilah Benkirane, who is at the head of an Islamic party, has rejected the politics of the tracking down and the witch hunting because he wanted to turn the page of the past along with all the accompanying corruption indicators that used to be part of the general politics. This is because he wanted to build trust, attract investments, and renormalize the relationship with the local capital owners based on transparency and honesty. In Egypt, the formation of the first cabinet in the era of President Mohammad Morsi was based on a combination of technocrats and politicians in light of the prevailing economic concern and the attempts at overcoming the sensitivities of the present phase so as to prevent the power monopolization of the Freedom and Justice party from turning into a coup against the pledges and the promises. In Tunisia, President Moncef al-Marzouki was so caught in the moment that he expressed fears when he indicated that the current situation might lead to the next revolution, in reference to the troika crisis, which was exacerbated by the economic crisis and the instability. Meanwhile, people thought that the reconciliation with the victims of the former era – that was conducted through the reparation of wrongs – was actually a present to the activists of the Islamic Al-Nahda more than anyone else. This meant the breaking of trust. There is still a need for avoiding the politics of provocation. The reason is that the idea of robbing the “winnings" of the Arab Spring is still there. Some believe that the fruits of the Arab Spring have fallen in the wrong soil; while others believe that the Islamic movements have reaped those fruits just to benefit their organizational bases; and others are betting on the revival of the Leftist and Liberal blocs in order to restore the balance. The Islamic movements that have seized the control of the political scene are actually aware of these equations. They might want to abstain from venturing into power monopoly specifically because of that. Just like the Street anger in many Arab countries was unexpected, the Islamists' taking over power was also unexpected as the speculations lacked any political intuition. However, most of the effective events in the course of the countries and societies are usually surprising or unexpected events. From the speeches of the Islamists in power, one can tell that they do not want to anger everyone and that they are working step by step in order to break the clash. If they succeed, they will be reaping the fruits of that success; and if they lose, they won't be the only ones to blame. When the experience of the Islamic Salvation Front got aborted in Algeria, many sides blamed the country for not allowing the Islamists the chance to try their luck in power transfer. This was in the past. Today, the road is all clear for several Islamic movements. Perhaps the difference is that the fear of failure is now being translated into actions such as the need to coexist and to abstain from entirely monopolizing power. There is nothing wrong if the beginning is a blend of mutual compromises. This is not because the Islamists have accessed power for the first time since they had a taste of power's bitterness in Palestine and Sudan. This is rather because this phase is different from the preceding experiences and it calls for a greater deal of abiding by the democratic rulings. Only experience can lead to enlightened choices. In the future, when the democratic building will be completed, no party or bloc will have to let go of its right to legitimate decision making; and no opposition group will be forced to let go of the terms of the vehement opposition. If we were to ponder the current picture well, we would realize that all the parties of the well-established democracies have borne a full responsibility on the basis that they would be held accountable at the end of their term. The French Socialists do not revert to the Right; and the Spanish right does not flirt with the losing Socialists. This is also the same for the Democrats and the Republicans in the States. But we are still at the beginning of the road.
