The Arab Spring Paper
February 12, 2014
The Arab Spring. Has it Failed?
The article “The Arab Spring. Has it Failed?” as seen in The Economist is about how despite the fact that after two and a half years of revolution and violence in the middle east we have seen very little positive changes, we shouldn’t give up hope as the Arab Spring revolution of brining positive change to this area of the world hasn’t exactly failed just yet. Because some of the countries with the highest hopes are struggling (Tunisia, Libya and Yemen), the failure of democracy in Egypt, and the bloodiness that has been a byproduct of Syria’s civil war, people believe that the Arab Spring has either already failed, or is doomed to do so. The article mentions that back in 1960, Egypt and South Korea shared similar life expectancy and GDP per head. Today, Egyptians face much more poverty and malnutrition, mainly thanks to an incompetent government. The reason this point is important is because it’s suggested that in order for the Arab Spring to have a positive effect here, it may be necessary for the government to take the form of a political system of totalitarianism. Unlike South-East Asia though where a ruler takes a nurturing-sense to democracy and tries to do what ever they can to implement a strong democracy and help the economy flourish, the Arab rulers do what they can to ensure that their personal benefactors and despots are the ones that benefit and evade the troubles of economic reform. It’s even worse in places like Syria where the ruler has no reservations about shedding blood in order to ensure that they stay in charge.
The article suggests a whole new problem entirely when it comes to implementing democracy in the Middle East, being that Arab democracy will only lead to rule by Islamists, who are no more capable of reform than the strongest men. When Muhammad Morsi was democratically elected into office in Egypt, he did all he could to mock and shoot down the norms of democracy during his
The Arab Spring. Has it Failed?
The article “The Arab Spring. Has it Failed?” as seen in The Economist is about how despite the fact that after two and a half years of revolution and violence in the middle east we have seen very little positive changes, we shouldn’t give up hope as the Arab Spring revolution of brining positive change to this area of the world hasn’t exactly failed just yet. Because some of the countries with the highest hopes are struggling (Tunisia, Libya and Yemen), the failure of democracy in Egypt, and the bloodiness that has been a byproduct of Syria’s civil war, people believe that the Arab Spring has either already failed, or is doomed to do so. The article mentions that back in 1960, Egypt and South Korea shared similar life expectancy and GDP per head. Today, Egyptians face much more poverty and malnutrition, mainly thanks to an incompetent government. The reason this point is important is because it’s suggested that in order for the Arab Spring to have a positive effect here, it may be necessary for the government to take the form of a political system of totalitarianism. Unlike South-East Asia though where a ruler takes a nurturing-sense to democracy and tries to do what ever they can to implement a strong democracy and help the economy flourish, the Arab rulers do what they can to ensure that their personal benefactors and despots are the ones that benefit and evade the troubles of economic reform. It’s even worse in places like Syria where the ruler has no reservations about shedding blood in order to ensure that they stay in charge.
The article suggests a whole new problem entirely when it comes to implementing democracy in the Middle East, being that Arab democracy will only lead to rule by Islamists, who are no more capable of reform than the strongest men. When Muhammad Morsi was democratically elected into office in Egypt, he did all he could to mock and shoot down the norms of democracy during his