The Arab Spring was an event which became known throughout the world. According to Jason Brownlee, Tarek Masoud and Andrew Reynolds (2013), the Arab Spring started at the end of 2010 in a Middle Eastern country identified as Tunisia (p.29). This shows that a Middle Eastern country had ejaculated a force of civil motivations of activism in the Arab Spring, and this played an important role for the oppressed Arab citizens to demand equality and human rights. Yakub Halabi (2014) claims that a majority of Arab nations have ‘authoritarian’ systems of government with a lack of a unified community (p.100-101). This shows that democracy is lacking in many Arab nations in the Middle East while the citizens of those countries are vulnerable to conflict because of the social circumstances surrounding Arab nations. In addition, Brownlee, Masoud and Reynolds (2013) elaborates on the idea that subsequent to Tunisia’s Arab Spring, Egypt, Libya and Yemen had participated in the Arab Spring, and this caused the risk of civil, political and social unrest being extremely high in 2013 (p.29). This is relevant evidence that Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen are in a worse position than they were before the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring was portrayed as a stride for Middle Eastern states to become an equal democratic utopia. However, an unstable economy, foreign intervention and paid terrorists were some of the reasons of the Arab Spring being unsuccessful for inserting democracy into the channels of politics in several Middle Eastern countries.
An unstable economy in some Arab countries resulted in a failure to maintain order and democracy. Brownlee, Masoud and Reynolds (2013) claim that the lack of oil resources and currency wealth proved to be impediments in the social stability of countries such as Tunisia while mega-oil cartels in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia can afford to keep their citizens satisfied and prevent any social unrest (p.32-33). This illustrates that the revenue gained from oil sales are vital in allowing the citizens of Middle Eastern countries to survive and prosper without becoming vulnerable to poverty in times of citizen activism. In addition, Peter Jones (2013) states that youth joblessness and inflation increased the tensions which eventually caused the Arab Spring (p.74-75). This shows that the economy of some of the Arab countries were already unstable, and any form of political or social unrest will result in chaos as seen through the events of the Arab Spring.
Military intervention by Western countries caused more harm than good for Middle Eastern countries. Brownlee, Masoud and Reynolds (2013) claim that the Libyan leader Gaddafi was kicked out of power through the use of military force by the North American Trade Organization (NATO) and this had little to do with the effort of the Arab activists (p.41). This means that NATO proceeded to remove a leader from power for unknown reasons. It can be argued that NATO was influenced by America. Peter Jones (2013) (as cited from the Supreme Leader of Iran in 2011) state that interference of America in the Arab Spring will be detrimental to the stability of Muslim Arab nations (p.75). This means that due to previous experiences, whenever the American politicians decide to intervene in foreign issues, the risk for chaos is high, and in most cases, it does not help the citizens in those Arab countries.
Paid terrorists interfered with the peaceful transition of democracy. According to Nathan Busch & Pilat (2013), the terrorist attack on foreign officials by Al-Qaeda in the Libyan city of Benghazi confirms that Libya is vulnerable to terrorism and extremism after the destruction of the former leadership of Libya (p.21). This reveals that terrorist groups in the Middle East operate without any regard for law and democracy, and the Arab Spring failed to consider that when there is no system of a stable form of governance, the risk of terrorists taking over is higher. Furthermore, terrorism leads to further destabilization. Nathan Busch & Pilat (2013) conclude that even Syria is at risk of abusing ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ (p.22). This is a clear indication that some of the Middle Eastern countries which were a part of the Arab Spring are unstable, and this increases the risk for paid terrorists to achieve their political aims at the expense of law-abiding Arab citizens. Peter Jones (2013) claims that religious differences in Islam’s Shia and Islams’ Sunni groups are prevalent in Arab countries (p.74). This means that people in Arab countries will continue to fight each other due to this belief differences. Therefore, there is a high chance that the paid terrorists will exploit those religious differences and create mayhem and influence the division of Arab citizens.
The Arab Spring did help in some way to lessen the power of dictatorships. Fr??d??ric Volpi (2013) claims that the activism of Algerians during the Arab Spring resulted in the Algerian government trying to meet with the citizens’ demands by increasing salaries and providing better standards of living (p.110-111). This means that although the government was not overthrown, the government had to conform to the demands of its citizens to prevent any more Arab Spring protesting. The Arab Spring was portrayed as a stride for Middle Eastern states to become democratic societies. However, the lack of wealth per capita, foreign intervention by Western governments and paid religious extremists were some of the causes of the Arab Spring which led to chaos in low-income Arab countries. However, taking into consideration the reduction of dictatorship state force on Algerians, the Arab Spring was successful in giving citizens more rights and chances for freedoms once order is maintained.
Corporate intervention has played a role in creating disorder in some of the Arab countries. Jon D. Michaels (2013) narrates that ‘foreign military contractors’, most of which are owned by American corporations, have infiltrated in the Arab Spring protests in countries such as Libya because these military businesses are alleged to do better work in eliminating protestors (p.281-283). This means that the oppressive regimes in the Middle East can pay people to forcefully control their citizens through direct violence, which in turn causes society and the economy to decay due to the negative effects of the civil unrest. Furthermore, Jon D. Michaels (2013) claims that the American government encourages the stifling of freedom in oppressed Middle Eastern countries because of legal loopholes and the military business relations with the American government which allows those entities to work for dictatorships and cause violence in other countries (p. 286). This clearly shows that the politicians in America have a motive in allowing destabilization of Middle Eastern countries while causing suffrage for those citizens. In addition, Anne R. Pierce (2014) claims that the current government of America supports the rights of certain Middle East leaders rather than the human rights of Middle Eastern citizens because of allegations of ‘shared interests’ between the leaders of America and some of the Middle Eastern countries (p.83). This illustrates that the American government has a motive in colluding with some of the Middle Eastern leaders for questionable motives. Therefore, the collusion amongst the American government, military corporations and some of the leaders of the Middle East has prevented Arab citizens in the Middle East from receiving democracy and human rights.
In conclusion, the expectations of democracy during the Arab Spring proved to be an unfulfilled scenario which resulted in many Arab citizens living in turmoil and faring desperate times. The Arab Spring was portrayed as a stride for Middle Eastern states to become an equal democratic utopia. However, an unstable economy, foreign intervention by the American government forces and for-profit corporations, and terrorists with extremist agendas were some of the causes of the Arab Spring which led to chaos. Therefore, the transition to democracy failed in many Arab countries during and after the Arab Spring because of political, social, religious, regional, international and corporate factors which are complicated enough to stir up unrest.