Hard lessons in liberty for the Middle East
With pro-democracy struggles in trouble in Iran and in the Arab Spring, opposition figures now realize that unity against tyranny is easier than unity in favor of democracy. Many see the need for a change.
For three years, the world has watched the people of the Middle East rise up against dictators. First came Iran in 2009 and then the Arab Spring in 2011. Almost all of the revolts – either active ones as in Syria or successful ones as in Egypt – have since ended, stalled, or hit rough spots.
One reason is that those who ignited the protests have since learned it is far easier to unite against tyranny than unite in favor of democratic values, such as respect for the opinions of others. Opposition leaders have too often split over egos, the role of Islam, the use of violence, or differing views of what democracy means.
Now, however, there are signs that many who first sought freedom have learned an expensive lesson from their own experience and from history in what can happen during a revolution. Even the American Colonists in 1776 were more united against King George III than united for democracy.
Ultimately, an affirmative identity for these movements based on democratic principles will be far more lasting for the Middle East than a negative identity, or what a group opposes. Positive ideals help form bonds across faiths, ethnicities, and classes. And only when Arabs and Iranians see that pro-democracy leaders respect their views might they grant authority to them.