On 17 December 2010, a twenty-six-year-old street vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi stood outside the regional headquarters of the Tunisian government in the provincial town of Sidi Bouzid, doused himself in paint thinner, and set himself alight. He died eighteen days later. His act of self-immolation, filmed on a mobile phone and circulated on social media, became the symbolic catalyst for the most significant wave of popular uprisings in the Arab world since decolonisation. Within weeks, the president of Tunisia had fled to Saudi Arabia. Within months, the presidents of Egypt and Libya had fallen. Within a year, the governments of Bahrain, Morocco, Jordan, and Yemen were fighting for survival. The Arab Spring — as the Western press quickly named it, invoking the hopeful imagery of the Prague Spring of 1968 — appeared to be dismantling the authoritarian order that had governed the Middle East and North Africa for generations.
Within five years, most of those hopes were extinguished. Tunisia, the country where it began, remained a fragile but functioning democracy — and then, in 2021, even that was rolled back when its president suspended parliament and consolidated power. Egypt had produced a democratic election and then a military coup. Libya had collapsed into a civil war that persists to the present day. Syria had descended into a catastrophe that killed hundreds of thousands and displaced half the population. Yemen was experiencing a famine induced by a civil war with no foreseeable end. The arc of the Arab Spring is among the most instructive political stories of the early twenty-first century: a story of the structural conditions that make revolutions possible and the structural conditions that make them fail.
The World That Produced the Uprisings
The Arab world of 2010 was, by almost any measure, a region in arrested development. Its governments — almost all of them authoritarian, almost all of them dependent on either oil revenues or Western security guarantees — had failed to diversify their economies, educate their populations for the jobs that actually existed, or provide the basic goods of governance: security, justice, and the sense that effort was rewarded and corruption punished. The demographic structure made the failure acute: the Arab world had one of the youngest populations on earth, a generation of educated people who had absorbed enough of the global economy’s promises to understand what they were being denied.
The statistics told the story. Youth unemployment across the Arab world ran at between 25 and 30 per cent in 2010, one of the highest rates in the world. University graduates competed for government jobs that were the only respectable employment available in economies where the private sector was stunted by patronage and regulation. The food price spike of 2007 to 2008, and its recurrence in 2010 and 2011, hit populations that spent half or more of their income on food with an immediacy that had no equivalent in the richer world. The global financial crisis of 2008 had reduced remittances from the Gulf and from Europe that many families depended on. The conditions for mass anger were assembled; Bouazizi’s death provided the match.
Social media provided the mechanism of organisation and amplification that previous generations of Arab protesters had lacked. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube allowed protesters to coordinate, to publicise atrocities committed against them, and to transmit their actions to international audiences in real time. The video of Bouazizi’s burning circulated on Al Jazeera, the pan-Arab satellite channel that had been transforming the information landscape of the Arab world for a decade, and within hours was being watched across the region. The role of social media in the Arab Spring was subsequently both overstated — as a cause rather than a facilitator — and dismissed, in the backlash against technological optimism. The truth was more nuanced: social media lowered the cost of organising and raised the cost of repression by increasing visibility, but it could not substitute for the organisational capacity and political clarity that successful revolutions have historically required.
Tunisia: The Revolution That Worked
Tunisia’s revolution was the least complicated of the Arab Spring’s episodes, and the one that came closest to success. President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali had ruled the country for twenty-three years with the standard toolkit of Arab authoritarianism: a political party with a monopoly on patronage, a security apparatus that monitored and suppressed dissent, and an economic model that enriched those connected to the regime while leaving the interior of the country — the agricultural and mining regions where Bouazizi had lived and worked — largely untouched by development. The combination of Bouazizi’s death, the rapid spread of protest through the interior cities, and the decision of the army not to fire on demonstrators produced, within four weeks, the flight of Ben Ali and his family to Saudi Arabia on 14 January 2011.
What Tunisia had that most of its neighbours lacked was a set of institutional legacies — a relatively independent judiciary, a powerful trade union confederation (the UGTT), a professional bar association, an organised women’s movement, and a tradition of relatively secular politics that had been planted by the country’s first post-independence president, Habib Bourguiba — that made the transition to democratic governance difficult but not impossible. The National Constituent Assembly that drafted a new constitution in 2013 and 2014 produced one of the most progressive constitutions in the Arab world, enshrining gender equality, the rights of conscience, and civilian oversight of the military. The quartet of civil society organisations that mediated the political crisis of 2013, when the assassination of opposition politicians threatened to derail the transition, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2015.
The democratic achievement was real, but fragile. The economy of the interior, which had generated the revolution, did not improve significantly. Corruption persisted. A series of Islamist terrorist attacks in 2015, directed at foreign tourists and the security forces, damaged the tourism industry on which the economy depended and created pressures for authoritarian responses. President Kais Saied, elected in 2019 on a reformist platform, suspended parliament in July 2021 and concentrated executive power in his own hands, reversing much of what the 2014 constitution had achieved. The democracy that Tunisia had managed to build was dismantled by a figure who had promised to renew it.
Egypt: The Revolution Consumed
Egypt’s uprising was the Arab Spring’s most dramatic act and its most complete failure. The protests that began on 25 January 2011 — chosen as a deliberate irony, since it was Police Day, a national holiday celebrating the institution most associated with repression — brought hundreds of thousands of people to Tahrir Square in Cairo and to squares in Alexandria, Suez, and cities across the country. The army, which held the real power in Egypt and had been the ultimate guarantor of the Mubarak regime for thirty years, allowed the president to fall on 11 February 2011 after eighteen days of continuous protest, calculating that it could manage the transition in its own interests. Hosni Mubarak, who had governed Egypt since 1981, was placed under arrest and later tried.
What followed was a struggle between three forces — the army, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the secular revolutionary youth who had organised the uprising — in which the outcome was never really in doubt. The Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest and best-organised political movement in Egypt, won the parliamentary elections of November 2011 and the presidential election of June 2012, with Mohamed Morsi becoming the first freely elected president in Egypt’s history. The Brotherhood’s government proved incapable of managing an economy in crisis, unwilling to build the cross-political alliances that a transition government required, and determined to use its electoral majority to press ideological objectives — a new constitution that alarmed secular Egyptians — that alienated much of the population that had not voted for it.
In July 2013, after mass protests against Morsi and with the explicit support of several secular political parties that had decided that the Brotherhood in power was more dangerous than military rule, General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi staged a coup and removed the elected government. The repression that followed was the most severe in Egypt’s modern history: the Brotherhood was declared a terrorist organisation, thousands of its members were imprisoned, hundreds were sentenced to death in mass trials that Egyptian and international human rights organisations described as a fundamental violation of due process, and the Rabaa massacre of August 2013 — in which security forces killed at least 817 Brotherhood supporters who had been holding a sit-in in a Cairo square — was characterised by Human Rights Watch as probably the largest massacre of demonstrators in modern Egyptian history. The international community, including the United States, absorbed this without substantive consequence. El-Sisi remains in power.
Libya: The NATO Intervention and Its Aftermath
The Libyan uprising of February 2011 developed faster and more violently than either Tunisia’s or Egypt’s, partly because Muammar Gaddafi, who had ruled Libya since his coup of 1969, had systematically destroyed the civil institutions and alternative power centres that in other countries might have provided a route to managed transition. Libya had no national army to speak of, no professional civil service, no independent judiciary — only the regime’s own militias, the tribal structures that Gaddafi had manipulated for four decades, and the oil revenues that financed both.
When Gaddafi responded to the uprising with language that explicitly threatened to “hunt down and cleanse” the opposition “house by house, street by street,” the UN Security Council authorised a no-fly zone and the protection of civilians. NATO’s subsequent air campaign went considerably beyond the protection of civilians to effectively become air support for the rebel forces, helping them capture Tripoli in August 2011 and Gaddafi himself in October, when he was found hiding in a drainage pipe near Sirte and killed by rebel fighters.
The collapse of Gaddafi’s regime left a country with no functioning state institutions into which power could transfer. The armed militias that had fought the war refused to disarm and be integrated into a national army. The oil revenues that had previously gone to Gaddafi’s personal patronage network now went to whoever controlled the oil facilities. The country fragmented into rival armed factions, then rival governments, then a civil war in which competing foreign powers backed competing sides — the Gulf states and Turkey supporting different Islamist factions, Egypt, the UAE, and Russia backing the Libyan National Army of Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar. A decade after NATO’s intervention, Libya remained a failed state, and the weapons that had flowed into it from Gaddafi’s arsenals had spread across the Sahara and destabilised Mali, Niger, and the broader Sahel.
Syria: The Catastrophe
The Syrian uprising that began in March 2011 produced the Arab Spring’s worst catastrophe. Bashar al-Assad, who had inherited the regime from his father Hafez in 2000, responded to the initial protests in Deraa with an escalating violence that transformed a civil uprising into an armed insurgency. The Syrian army, unlike the Egyptian army, did not abandon the president. The security services, which were more deeply embedded in the regime’s structure than anywhere else in the Arab world, remained loyal. The regime’s core constituency — the Alawi minority, Christians fearful of Sunni Islamism, the business class of Damascus and Aleppo that had profited from the economic liberalisation of the 2000s — calculated that the risk of a transition outweighed the costs of the violence.
What followed was a war of almost incomprehensible destructiveness. The Syrian government used barrel bombs, chemical weapons, siege tactics that starved civilian populations, and the systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure — hospitals, water systems, schools — as instruments of policy. The insurgency fragmented between secular nationalist groups, Islamist factions backed by the Gulf states and Turkey, and the Islamic State, which captured large areas of eastern Syria and northern Iraq and declared its caliphate in June 2014. The United States intervened militarily from 2014, ostensibly against ISIS; Russia intervened from 2015 in explicit support of Assad, decisively shifting the military balance. By the time the regime had retaken most of the country’s territory by 2019, estimates of the dead ranged from 350,000 to half a million. Approximately half of Syria’s pre-war population of 22 million had been displaced, either internally or as refugees.
Bahrain and the Limits of the Possible
The uprising in Bahrain, where a Shia majority had been governed by a Sunni royal family with the backing of Saudi Arabia and the United States for decades, demonstrated what the Arab Spring could not do in the face of determined regional power. The protests that gathered at Pearl Roundabout in Manama in February 2011 were peaceful and sustained, demanding a constitutional monarchy, fair elections, and an end to discrimination against the Shia majority. The Bahraini government declared martial law and invited Saudi and Emirati troops to cross the causeway and assist in the crackdown. The roundabout’s iconic pearl monument was demolished. The protests were suppressed with a thoroughness that left the political situation essentially unchanged.
The Bahraini case illustrated the geopolitical dimension that the Arab Spring’s optimists had underestimated. Saudi Arabia, the dominant power in the Gulf, viewed the Shia uprisings in Bahrain with undisguised alarm — a successful Shia democracy in Bahrain, in its view, would embolden the Shia minority in Saudi Arabia’s own Eastern Province and strengthen Iran’s regional influence. The intervention was swift, decisive, and essentially consequence-free in terms of international reaction: the United States, which maintained its Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, said nothing that mattered.
Why the Arab Spring Failed
The question of why the Arab Spring produced so few durable democratic transitions has generated substantial scholarly debate. Several structural factors recur across the different cases. The countries that managed transitions most successfully — Tunisia, Morocco to a limited extent — had civil society institutions capable of mediating between political factions. The countries that failed most completely — Libya, Syria, Yemen — had states so thoroughly personalised or predatory that no alternative institutional structure existed to catch the power that fell. Egypt had the institutional structure but a military establishment determined to retain control of it.
The Islamist question proved, in almost every case, more complicated than either optimists or pessimists had expected. The Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates were the best-organised political movements in the Arab world precisely because they had been providing social services — clinics, schools, welfare networks — that the state had failed to provide. Their electoral success reflected genuine social support. But they proved unable or unwilling to build the cross-sectoral coalitions that successful transitions require, and their determination to press Islamic constitutional provisions alarmed secular minorities and the military establishments that had the guns. The outcome in Egypt, where the army used secular anxieties about the Brotherhood to justify a coup that installed a regime more repressive than the one the revolution had deposed, was a demonstration of how the Islamism question could be weaponised against democratic aspirations.
The international dimension was, as always, determining. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which feared democratic contagion as they feared few other things, used their financial resources systematically to support counter-revolutionary forces. Russia, which drew lessons from Libya’s NATO-assisted transition that reinforced its determination to prevent any similar intervention in Syria, provided the military backbone that allowed Assad to survive. The United States, committed simultaneously to regional stability, Israeli security, Gulf oil, and democratic values, managed to compromise each of these commitments in the service of the others and satisfied none.
What the Arab Spring revealed was not that Arab populations were incapable of democracy or uninterested in it — the millions who took extraordinary personal risks to fill those squares demonstrated otherwise — but that democratic transitions require more than popular will. They require institutions, political cultures, economic conditions, and international environments that either facilitate or foreclose the possibility. In most of the Arab world in 2011, the conditions that made democratic transition possible were absent, while the conditions that made counter-revolution possible were abundantly present.
The long-term consequences of the Arab Spring continue to unfold. The Syrian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, and Europe have not returned. The Islamic State, though defeated as a territorial entity, survives as a distributed network. The governments that survived — Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states — have used the failure of the Arab Spring as an argument for the indispensability of authoritarian stability. The argument is self-serving, but it has found a receptive audience in Western capitals whose tolerance for the disorder of democratic transitions has historically been limited. The spring became winter, and winter has lasted longer than anyone predicted.
Leave a Reply