Why did the Arab Spring fail? Of course, the ferocity of tyranny, and its regional and international sponsors, but also the failure of the Democrats towards the psychological and media war that this tyranny has waged against them and continues to wage against them.

The law was and will remain that political systems die and are born in minds and hearts for years and sometimes decades, before they die or are born in presidential palaces and parliaments, so the initiative must be restored to win this fateful battle.

That is why Democrats must sweep away all centers of access (to the public), all centers of influence (media), and repeat the democratic narrative on every occasion, because the weapon of tyranny is repeating the same lies.

They must always stick to the attack site, and it is okay to do so with a great deal of rudeness, because the enemies of democracy practice it daily, and only iron falls iron.

To confront them, I summarized their miserable justifications and arguments that they put forward to mislead society and give preference to subjects over citizens:

The first argument: Is it not enough of the ruin of your Hebrew Spring and your so-called democratic revolutions and the woes that cost their peoples?

Therefore, we respond to them that you, O tyrants, are the cause of the catastrophe experienced by the peoples of the Arab Spring, and you are criminals against these peoples 3 times.

First, when you caused your corruption, injustice and inability to provide the most basic necessities of a decent life, people took to the streets and thousands of young people died in defense of their right to life.

Second, when you organized the counter-revolution and did not hesitate to destroy entire countries and peoples with your recruited corrupt money, corrupt media, corrupt politicians, mercenaries and foreign interference.

You are criminals a third time, because you have learned nothing from these revolutions, and you are considered more arrogant and stupid for the same practices that generated the first wave of the Arab Spring revolutions. Keep dancing on the volcano, do you think you've survived? The question is not whether the volcano will erupt again under your feet, but when!

The function of democracy is to provide individual and public freedoms, to build a state of law and institutions, and to accelerate the exit of people from the status of subjects to the status of citizens, and its function is not to create jobs or wealth.

The second argument: Do you not see how democracy failed miserably in Tunisia, the cradle of the so-called Arab Spring, how the people hated a laughing stock parliament and how they chose to return to the strongman regime?

And here we will have two categories of people:

  • If your interlocutor is a populist who reveres this vague concept of the people, this can be answered harshly:

The people are not a being above all criticism, they are only a human gathering that can be right and wrong, especially if they are the victim of a continuous and planned fallacy with much malice on the part of the means of disinformation driven by corrupt money. It was only him who elected the laughing stock of the House of Representatives, and had to wait for the next election to replace it with something better, the solution was never to empty the baby (the rule of institutions and the law) with dirty bath water (I mean corrupt MPs). As for the elite on which he puts the burden of his catastrophe, it is his elite, which he produced with his education, media and values, and purebred Arabian horses do not give birth to donkeys.

  • But if your interlocutor is one of those who desecrate the people and that he is a bunch of rabble and marketers and does not know the meaning of democracy:

He reminded him that Egyptians and Tunisians stood for long hours under the sun in the 2011 elections, with turnout exceeding 50% of the electoral lists. However, their participation in the ensuing turnout did not exceed 10%, not forgetting the number of democratic revolutions carried out by the people of Sudan since independence, the uprising of the Algerian people in 1988, and other popular movements in the region.

The third argument: Have you not understood that what our Arab peoples want above all is economic progress, and that what China has achieved is what we should achieve?

70 years and you crack our heads that economic progress comes before freedom, we have lost progress and freedom with you, and you are still repeating this broken cylinder.

Regarding the Chinese model that has achieved progress by sacrificing freedom, remember that there are countries such as Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and Indonesia that have achieved and are achieving amazing economic growth without sacrificing freedom on the altar of economic progress. On the contrary, there is more than one authoritarian regime that has destroyed the economy and destroyed freedom: Algeria, Libya and Syria.

The fourth argument: say what you want, but the priority priority in the Arab world is to get out of poverty for millions, and democracy is not what feeds them from hunger, but it can, as we saw in Tunisia, be the cause of more poverty.

When you go to the internist, you don't blame him for not pulling out a tooth that causes you a lot of pain. Each area has its own competence and it is absurd or ignorant to hold one area of responsibility for another. In the same vein, the function of democracy is to provide individual and public freedoms, to build a state of law and institutions, and to accelerate the exit of people from the status of subjects to the status of citizens, and its function is not to create jobs or wealth.

The most that can be done is lay the solid foundations for an effective economic machine, such as an independent judiciary that adjudicates economic disputes, preserves rights for their owners, and fights corruption. Otherwise, you have to move the economic machine with another ideology, such as liberalism, socialism, the social solidarity economy, etc. In any case, democracy does not hold a responsibility that is not its own. It is enough for her to have the honor of preserving an important part of the political and moral needs of man, such as freedom, responsibility, dignity and equality before the law.

Now between you and me and you talk to me about poverty, and with full agreement that it is better to be free and rich, would you rather be poor in a country where there is minimal freedom that would enable you to protest your situation in order to improve it, or be poor in a dictatorship where you can only open your mouth at the dentist to impose your ability to pay his wages?!

Ah.. You prefer to live poor in a dictatorship because it provides you with security and safety. Yes, just as there are cases of cancer that are incurable, there are pastoral political cases that can no longer be remedied.

Fifth argument: Don't you know that democracy is a Western commodity that Westerners sell as part of their cultural invasion of our nation?

I advise the deceived if they are intellectuals to read the book of British researchers Graeber and Wengrow entitled (The dawn of everything), which is one of the richest books in history and anthropology.

This book asserts, inter alia, that the story told by Westerners about the beginning of democracy from Athens in the fifth century BC, and that the Greeks were the fathers of European civilization, is an unfounded myth. To this day, the Greeks are a Mediterranean people closer to the Lebanese, Syrians and Egyptians than to the Irish or Germans.

As for democracy in its primitive form, which Athens knew – that is, the rule of councils rather than the rule of the individual, the authors say that it was common in Mesopotamian cities 3,<> years before Athens. Human societies in all civilizations and on all continents have experienced the tug-of-war and the constant struggle between the rule of councils and the rule of the individual. Let our nationalist brothers and sisters rest assured that democracy is not a Western commodity, especially since the greatest dictatorships of the twentieth century, Nazism, fascism and communism, were all Western dictatorships.

The sixth argument: Do we need these Western goods and our Shura enriches us from every imported ideology that contradicts the teachings of the tolerant Sharia and transgresses on the command that does not disobey "Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in charge of you" (Surah An-Nisa / from verse 59)

To reassure the Islamic brothers and sisters, democracy is not a religion that competes with Islam, and the understanding of the intervention to the command "obey your guardians" is the issue of tyrannical intelligence, the delegation of religion, and corrupt money, and not an issue of thought worth discussing. As for Shura, it can be considered part of the democracies that the British researchers talk about, but as the means of transportation, communication and governance have evolved, there is no shame in modernizing the Shura to rise to the level of complexity of contemporary societies.

The seventh argument: But how can you deny that Western regimes always interfere in our affairs under the pretext of defending human rights, and we are independent states and no one has the right to infringe on independence?

You are independent countries just like I am the Emperor of Mars! As for the Western regimes, they are your friend, the tyrants, and even your protectors, and their modest interventions are sometimes only to raise the threshold in front of their people and camouflage our peoples. We have seen their lukewarm reception of the Arab democratic revolutions. Contrary to what you claim, Arab democracy will be born not thanks to the West (the West of governments) but completely independent of it.

Argument Eight: Do you still really believe that democracy has a future? Have you not read all the reports of the competent organizations that prove their decline everywhere, even in their American and European stronghold?

Yes, democracy is in a difficult situation, but it is only more difficult for your authoritarian regimes. These regimes have swept away in a brief period of human history in Western and Eastern Europe, in Latin America and even in sub-Saharan Africa, and are under direct threat everywhere in the Arab world and even in Russia. As for China, its demographic problems, the slowdown of its economy and the emergence of new generations of passive resistance do not bode well for a model that shines but is not gold.

The ninth argument: Ok, then, blessed be upon you and the boys and girls - the democracy of Iraq and the democracy of Lebanon

Ah.. You hit me dead, you malicious. Indeed, if your Western friends were content to support tyranny secretly and openly, we would have endured their misfortunes, but they struck us fatally while imposing with tanks a democratic caricature in Iraq, and before that in Lebanon, albeit with consent, and I do not say with the complicity of the leaders of the poor country.

Of course, such democracy does not provide stability, but is the most important factor in its absence. It does not create a state of law and institutions, but rather a stylized form of a state of apparatuses and gangs. It does not create a people of citizens, it creates a people of customers. It is not the start of the unitary process because it is the explosive factor of the state itself.

What we will build will be the absolute opposite of these monstrous democracies, but they will be more developed democracies even than those in the West.

The tenth and final argument: Live my heart in Mina, before achieving this dream, how will you face regimes that have defeated you by knockout and thwarted what you call the peaceful democratic revolution? Don't you know that these regimes are stronger than ever, as evidenced by the survival of the Syrian regime on the ruins of the state and the people?

It is the main question that must be answered without diminishing the power of the authoritarian adversary, but without exaggerating it, because this same adversary is "drowning".