Tunisia faces a political crisis, and not only a social one. In crises, the differences between the state of institutions and the blinding delusions of the authorities are revealed. In long-standing democratic countries, there are street protests and disturbances. However, they are extinguished by measures that respond to the protestors' demands, or involve what the given state considers unjust decisions, although they are the correct ones. Governments might fall, parties may depart, and decisions may be revoked. However, this does not affect the natural course of state institutions, which are based on the law and the authority derived from a peaceful transfer of power. This is exactly where the difference in the two experiences lies. The heads of states and governments may tend toward absorbing and containing emerging incidents of unrest, as in May 1968, or in the repercussions of unrest in Paris suburbs. However, others lack the courage to admit a mistake. This takes place under pressure, and most of the time, it comes too late. How many times have lost opportunities caused events to move in an unpredictable direction? The surprise in the wave of Tunisian anger was that it was unexpected. Previously, what prevailed was the surrender to the reality, and to artificial delusions, which described the country as being in the grip of a security state. Many ignored the fact that one mere slip could put the skilled manager of this process in danger. In a similar context, the late King Hassan II of Morocco once described the most dangerous plot he faced, after two failed coups in 1971 and 1972, as worse than seeing innocent victims slaughtered. He said a silent plot is more dangerous, announcing at the time that he no longer trusted even the pillow that he went to sleep on. Morocco's experience required many bitter years of tension and conflict before the choice fell on the opposition politician Abdel-Rahman Yusufi to become prime minister of a government of rotation. At the time, Morocco found no embarrassment in opening its prisons and releasing secretly-held prisoners, and began the era of a historic accord between the opposition and the palace. North African countries have had vastly different experiences. They have all been shaken on occasion by riots over bread, the problems of unemployment, and prospects of a bleak future. However, each country has followed its own path. It was no secret that in Tunisia, many promises were not kept. The country reassured itself by its pace of development whose figures and prospects amounted to a “miracle,” which events later showed to be false, or mere bubbles. This socio-economic situation could not hold out against the frightening disparities, and the types of damage that left the country divided between a rich North and a poorer South. The self-confidence level rises because the dangers had been measured by the ability to hold out against extremist Islamist groups, whose influence has been growing in North Africa. A comparison between what is bad, and what is worse, worked to obscure the real options and alternatives for confronting the situation. This policy was encouraged by countries concerned with the Maghreb, namely the Europeans and Americans, who were fixated on security issues. They feared that the virus of extremism might spread to the Northern shore of the Mediterranean. However, the other side of the story holds that the growth of extremism also springs from the rising feeling of injustice, marginalization and exclusion. Thus, the descent toward the unknown dominated many perspectives, and many decisions. There was some success in confronting extremism, accompanied by considerable failure when it came to moving on the correct path. It has been confirmed today that any security approach, no matter how much financing and equipment are put at its disposal, cannot succeed in confronting the unknown, which is knocking on people's doors and exploding in a rage that burns the streets. The viable alternative can only lie in adopting democratic approaches, which boost the option of public participation in decision-making. The angry public does not only represent new generations in search of a place under the sun; people are also putting forward a new generation of reforms, whose impact has yet to appear.
