When I hear about all of the anti-government demonstrations going on throughout Arabic-speaking autocracies in the Middle East, I cringe a little when I hear in the press that they are pro-democracy protests. I cringe even more when I witness a supposedly professionally ethical, objective journalist in the midst of one such crowd of demonstrators, encouraging and egging them on. After all, I'm looking at what's happening in my own country and...
Even with the civics curriculum supposedly having been taught to children during their school days (in whatever form or designation it was presented), there seems to be a growing tendency in America for the losing side in elections to (1) cry foul, the election was stolen (2000, 2004 Bush wins), (2) cry foul, the candidate was ineligible (2008 Obama and the "birthers"), (3) cry foul, the winning candidate duped the voters into voting for him or her and thus is somehow not to be truly respected as the winner, and/or (4) cry foul, the process itself has been tainted by special interests who control the political parties and media. So, without even a smidgen of an educational background that would teach people that in a democracy, losers need to respect the winners as their legitimately chosen leaders, how in the world can we expect those continually pouring out into the streets in places like Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, or Bahrain to be putting their lives on the line "for democracy"?
I think that the people in these lands have different reasons for rising up against their governments. Not having another rational means to address their many grievances is the obvious motivation, but just having crossed a threshold of momentum with the magnitude of the demonstrations has emboldened anyone with an axe to grind about anything to protest. And that includes the many in these lands who believe that the state has been too secular and not respectful of their religion. Many of these want a theocracy, not a democracy.
Those demonstrating also include, probably to a higher extent, those whose past, present, and foreseeable futures are mired in poverty as they see their corrupt leaders siphoning off their nations' wealth for their own personal gain. A socialist state may be more to their liking, whether or not democratic institutions accompany it.
Democracy is a fragile and sophisticated institution that requires a certain ability among the population to accept others with differing points of view. But from what I have witnessed so far, there is too much of a "We: Good Guys...Them: Bad Guys...Make Bad Guys Disappear" atmosphere among those pushing for change for any sustainable, workable democracy to gain traction in these countries. Yet. But I don't decry anyone for trying. Still, journalists and the media need to step back and consider the diversity of motives involved here in these protests.
Also, for a true democracy to work to any effective degree, there has to be a judicial system that is generally respected by the population and which is not thought of as being simply the tool of whomever happens to be in power. And the military has to have a strong sense of duty as an institution
subordinate to the duly elected powers, not a power unto itself to determine policy (or even if elected civilian leaders stay or go). These countries have a long, long way to go, I'm afraid.
Of course I hope that I'm wrong about things and that all of these countries that are currently in turmoil can transform themselves into societies within which the government serves the people and allows itself to be regularly held accountable, through free elections (implying a concomitant free press) and an independent judiciary. But that seems to be asking for an awful lot, awfully soon.