JUST like Tunisians, Egyptians were suffering from the rule of a tyrannical regime and they were glued to their TV sets watching the developments of the Tunisian revolution and waiting patiently for its final results. They admired the Tunisian revolution and decided to follow suit. It was a prompt, surprising yet definitive decision made by the majority of Egyptians. Only a few days after the Tunisian president fled the country, the popular and peaceful revolution erupted in Egypt on Jan. 25, 2011. Millions of young Egyptians took to the streets and gathered at the public squares of several governorates to stage a peaceful protest and sit-ins, especially at the Tahrir Square. The oppressed protesters demanded the ouster of the regime and kept repeating the same slogan to express their demands: “The people want to overthrow the regime.” In response to these protests, the defunct regime mobilized all its capabilities to face one of the unprecedented overwhelming revolutions in the region that took place subsequent to the Tunisian revolution. By all standards, the Egyptian revolution was bigger, more focused and had more demands. It was a revolution against a regime which caused a lot of harm even outside its borders. However, all attempts made by Mubarak's regime to appease the revolutionaries failed. The regime was trying to suppress the revolution and throw its leaders in prison. But the peaceful revolutionaries remained persistent and consistent in their demands to the extent that the government had to make continuous concessions and promises to do reform, as if Mubarak was telling Egyptians “Yes, these demands are legitimate and true. I have ignored them in the past but I will meet some of them if you give me an extra time.” With every concession Mubarak had to make, the ceiling of popular legitimate demands kept rising. Faltering, the regime eventually collapsed and Mubarak stepped down on Feb. 11, 2011 to let the Supreme Council of Armed Forces take over the country, temporarily, for a period that might exceed a year. The Supreme Council has recently appointed an interim caretaker government whose members did not hold any positions in the former regime. A legal and political committee has been formed to make necessary amendments in the constitution and the former legislative authority with its people's and Shoura Councils have been dissolved. The Supreme Council promised to give up power once a new legislative authority and a new chairman for the executive authority have been elected. It emphasized that “the council is not an alternative to the choices of the Egyptian people”. The constitution committee made some amendments to the Egyptian constitution and reformulated some of its important parts, which the former regime changed to guarantee and protect its control over power forever. The constitutional articles were amended based on democratic values. The majority of Egyptians (78 percent) who participated in the popular referendum agreed to the amendments. To this moment, some Egyptian intellectuals are still calling for writing a new Egyptian constitution which establishes a democratic and parliamentary system instead of the “democratic” presidential system. Toward the end of March 2011, the Supreme Council made a decision to hold legislative elections soon followed by presidential elections. Until a new president has been elected, the Supreme Council in cooperation with the appointed executive authority will run the country. The court issued a decision to dissolve the “democratic national party” which ruled during Mubarak's term. The date Aug. 3, 2011 was a unique historical day in the life of all Egyptians. It was the day when Mubarak, his two sons, the then minister of interior, six assistants and Hussain Salem, the businessman close to Mubarak, stood trial I am not trying to arrange the Tunisian and Egyptian events chronologically. But I want to give the reader an introduction before I talk about the reasons behind these sweeping and unprecedented political developments in the modern history of the Arab nation. I wanted the reader to know why these events took place and what repercussions they would have on the entire political and Arab situation today. Besides, what are the most important reasons, results and repercussions? I will answer these questions briefly in the following paragraphs. The pivotal role Egypt plays in the region and the fact that it leads the Arab Spring add more strength to this spring. Most governments around the world are divided into two main types: dictatorial (not representative) and democratic (representative). The second is the opposite of the first and is the only alternative to all forms of dictatorship which have become unacceptable at all levels. The winds of freedom and democracy blew over the majority of countries around the world but some dictatorships remained in some countries including Arab republics, the majority of which still live under political tyrannical rule. The shining examples of such tyrannical governments are the regimes which ruled Tunisia and Egypt and which are ruling Libya, Yemen and Syria. (This analysis applies to tyrannical Arab republics regimes only.) In most Arab republics with tyrannical regimes, we find one ruler who took over the power by illegitimate, crooked and invalid methods. With him, we find a group of persons supporting him in his tyrannical rule. They are the only beneficiaries of the booty, as they regarded it. They are the ones who dominate the country's capabilities and resources and use them for their own interests and for strengthening their grip on the power for the longest time possible and by any means necessary, even if they have to enslave and humiliate citizens and forge foreign relations with their country's enemies. In light of the flagrant tyrannical regime, a major crisis happens where a conflict (covert and declared) erupts between the regime and the majority of people. The main catalyst for these popular revolutions is the domination of the tyrannical republic regime and the oppression, suppression and corruption this regime causes to strengthen its grip on power over time. It is the opposite of what should have taken place. The regime should have changed its tyrannical rule and focused on making the necessary political reforms which the people want and which prudent governments make. These reforms mitigate the hardships and cruelty of life for people and facilitate the methods of decent life for them. *Member of the Shoura Council, Professor of Political Science __
