• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Paul Salem"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "Arab Awakening"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Egypt",
    "Levant",
    "Maghreb",
    "Syria",
    "Tunisia",
    "Libya",
    "Middle East",
    "North Africa"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Democracy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

The Interconnectedness of Arab Seasons

The current uprisings taking place across the Middle East and North Africa are interconnected; the success or failure of one country’s democratic transition could have a direct impact on the prospects for transition in another.

Link Copied
By Paul Salem
Published on Nov 20, 2011

Source: National

The Interconnectedness of Arab SeasonsJust as last December's revolt in Tunisia sparked revolutions in other Arab countries, so too will the success or failure of one Arab country's transition affect the prospects for transition in another.

The successful elections in Tunisia should have a positive effect on the upcoming elections in Egypt; the success or failure of transition in Libya will affect calculations toward Syria and Yemen; and the negotiation for a managed transition in Yemen or Syria could also have effects elsewhere. The fast-moving seasons of the Arab uprisings show that events in the Arab world are deeply interconnected.

The elections in Tunisia are of great significance. They are the first scene of the second act of the Arab Spring, which is moving from popular revolutions to organising democratic elections. The successful management of Tunisia's elections is a major achievement that Egypt and other countries can learn from.

In terms of political content, the elections confirmed two new realities.

First, political pluralism is a clear part of the new landscape. While the Islamist Ennahda party got 41 per cent of the vote, 59 per cent went to other parties, including secularists, nationalists, leftists, other Islamists and others. This pluralism will likely be echoed in the Egyptian elections and sends a strong signal to political leaders and parties in Libya, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere.

Second, moderate Islamists are the major players in the new political space. It is important that the leaders of the Ennahda party stated their preference for governing by coalition and for political moderation. Ennahda leader Rachid Ghannouchi has said clearly that Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) is his party's model.

This clarity is important for Tunisia and should also send strong messages to the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, who have a generally positive view of the AKP experience but have clashed with Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on his definition of a secular state.

Many in the region and around the world are also watching the Libyan transition closely and linking it to events in Syria and Yemen. If Libya manages to maintain unity, restore security and successfully achieve a transition to effective and democratic government, this will encourage those who argue that revolution - and foreign military intervention - can have a positive outcome even in countries with precarious national unity and weak state institutions.

In particular, Russia and China are closely following Libya. If the country succeeds the Chinese and Russians lose some credibility in their argument against intervention and revolution in Syria; if it stumbles, they will be vindicated in their warnings to the international community that Syria (and Yemen) is not like Tunisia and Egypt, and that in some countries regime survival is the lesser of two evils.

Consistent with the interconnectedness of the Arab Spring, the fate of the proposed negotiated settlements in Yemen and Syria might have a significant effect on one another.

So far, the Syrian regime sees only two models: countries in which the uprisings were crushed (Iran in 2009, for example); and countries where the uprisings succeeded and led to the imprisonment, flight or death of the autocratic ruler (Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, respectively).

There has yet to be a country with a successful negotiated political outcome.

Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh has so far refused to sign the deal proposed by the Gulf Cooperation Council. There are heavy doubts about the Syrian government's commitment to the deal agreed to with the Arab League (the League has already suspended Syria, and set a deadline of early this morning for Damascus to end its bloody crackdown). If either Yemen or Syria actually implements a negotiated agreement, it will put significant pressure on the other country to respond in a similar fashion.

As the Arab Spring enters its 11th month, developments continue to be highly interconnected. This perhaps should not be surprising. Democratisation in other parts of the world also happened in sudden regional waves: Central and Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall; Latin America in the 1970s and 80s; and Western Europe after the Second World War. Societies and political systems do not develop in a vacuum, and events in one country have a strong demonstration effect in another.

The regional and international community needs to focus intensely on helping the first transitions succeed to ensure that others follow along a positive path. Many revolutions in the past have collapsed into a renewal of dictatorship or spiralled into civil war. There is nothing guaranteed about transitions to democracy. We need to build success one firm step at a time.

About the Author

Paul Salem

Senior Fellow at the Middle East Institute

Paul Salem is a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute.

    Recent Work

  • Paper
    Iraq’s Tangled Foreign Interests and Relations

      Paul Salem

  • Article
    Bracing for Impact in Syria

      Paul Salem

Paul Salem
Senior Fellow at the Middle East Institute
Paul Salem
Political ReformDemocracyEgyptLevantMaghrebSyriaTunisiaLibyaMiddle EastNorth Africa

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is it NATO’s Job to Support Trump’s War of Choice?

    Donald Trump has demanded that European allies send ships to the Strait of Hormuz while his war of choice in Iran rages on. He has constantly berated NATO while the alliance’s secretary-general has emphatically supported him.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Russia’s Imperial Retreat Is Europe’s Strategic Opportunity

    The war in Ukraine is costing Russia its leverage overseas. Across the South Caucasus and Middle East, this presents an opportunity for Europe to pick up the pieces and claim its own sphere of influence.

      William Dixon, Maksym Beznosiuk

  • Commentary
    Is the Radical-Right Threat Existential or Overstated?

    Amid increased polarization and the influence of disinformation, radical-right parties are once again gaining traction across Europe. With landmark elections on the horizon in several countries, are the EU’s geostrategic vision and fundamental values under existential threat?

      Catherine Fieschi, Cas Mudde

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    The EU Needs a Third Way in Iran

    European reactions to the war in Iran have lost sight of wider political dynamics. The EU must position itself for the next phase of the crisis without giving up on its principles.

      Richard Youngs

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Europe on Iran: Gone with the Wind

    Europe’s reaction to the war in Iran has been disunited and meek, a far cry from its previously leading role in diplomacy with Tehran. To avoid being condemned to the sidelines while escalation continues, Brussels needs to stand up for international law.

      Pierre Vimont

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.