Unless any revolution in the world is led by a leader or a party guided by rebel who has his own bases deep in his county, only the passive and the opportunist will try to jump competitively and steal the spot light based only on claims. And unless the people's awareness overweighs those who set themselves as the fathers of revolutions, any person will be able to carry his thoughts and lead the field. What took place in Tunisia and Egypt was not the echo of a speech of a leader, or the pamphlets of party, but was, however, a spontaneous reaction of young men who want to identify where they are, and have their aspirations and demands achieved through communications channels that they concern them, which in their turn, aroused these young men's awareness and desire to change. In the Egyptian case, there is who appeared from the authority condemning, justifying, and blaming specific figures for the causes and the results, as though they were innocent, counting on the fall of the such figures so that they would follow the trend of the successors. However, groups and individuals with records of financial and administrative corruption will continue to have such violations in front of them whenever judged in the terms of innocence or involvement. The army is still impartial and out of the calculations concerning the authority change for fear of creating political vacuum that cannot be filled, or for fear of the consequences of the public crowds who do not accept the military to be in power, because the Arab experiences proved to be extremely fruitless in countries there military ruled. On the contrary, what happened in Tunisia upon forming a temporary government that wants to prepare for election and constitutional amendments and establish a democratic system in which the army would still hold an impartial role was a step that convinced the people until brining an alternative that corresponds to their national demands, which was also a guiding step for any similar revolution. The Egyptian army is very huge and its movement is really complicated. Perhaps it chose dialogue between the parties in order to be a watcher and to preserve the national security. The evidence on its successful and humane treatment to the street explosions lies in the fact that it has become a symbol for everybody; it has not fired a single bullet, even while alternatives were provided by the vice president and the prime minister who were nominated by President Mubarak, and who also come from martial backgrounds. However, a decision shall be made, either by a continuous public pressure, or by accepting a new experience from the current authority. The subsequent events pushed the Arab governments for political and economical reforms, and made them acknowledge that people is the scale that either impose security or insecurity, or they might have made them accept to take the risk of accepting unrest and afford losses on the governmental and public levels, or perhaps unhappy endings. The voice of the opposition in any system should be heard because they form the other side of the formula. However, marginalization and neglecting them will keep enforce their persistent to continue abetting people and uncovering the disadvantage of the authority, in addition to gaining a legal and public cover every day. Thereby, a country cannot be ruled by one front where the alternative would be either a coup or violent strikes lead by desperate people. Perhaps it is those revolutionaries who chose advanced technologies to be their open space are the ones who made change and canceled outweighed ideologies by public spontaneity. The world now is witnessing transformations that cannot be stopped or marginalized if people wanted made their minds to make their own choices.
