The Arab peoples are reaping the results of what has been sown over recent decades, by the regimes that are currently facing popular uprisings. In spite of the blood that has been spilled on Arab streets, as a consequence of the confrontations between the oppressive security services and the protestors, the regimes are still able to stand on their feet, albeit with great difficulty. Here, the fear of the alternative to the regimes is the "bogeyman" that is frightening some members of the opposition inside the country, and most of those defending the demands for democratic change abroad. The regimes are relying on the disintegration of Arab societies into sects, tribes, and clans. However, the only party responsible for such a scenario is the old Arab political order itself, upon whose ruins the popular uprisings are trying to build something positive. This Arab order does not see the negative aspect of this disintegration and communal scattering. On the contrary, this has become a fundamental factor, if not the only factor, that has prolonged the life of these decrepit regimes. From the streets of Syria to Libya, and Egypt and Yemen, nothing is standing in the way of the fall of these regimes, whose expiration date has indeed lapsed, except the disintegration of the various "oppositions" and the absence of political alternatives that allow things to move from a state of chaos, feared by all, to a state of organized stability, which could be the gateway to a new regime. But who has left behind this situation of deliberate domestic drift, other than the successive regimes in the countries mentioned, over the last 40 years? Oppression has not been the only weapon that has been used against the rise of opposition movements that could stand on their own feet, and subsequently become valid alternatives one day. Instead, these regimes have to a large degree also sought to nourish sectarian and tribal affiliations and cronyism, allowing social cohesion to collapse, and society to become severely polarized and divided. Today, we are seeing the natural result of this division, represented by fears over what civil war will do to the unity of society, should the opposition movements defeat and oust the regimes. To put it even more bluntly, the oppression used by the regime in these countries has become synonymous with stability, while the rise of a democratic situation has become synonymous with sectarian massacres. Even in Tunisia and Egypt, where the bin Ali and Mubarak have been toppled, the elements of domestic fragmentation and fear of the alternative have come to dominate the political scene. This may explain the state of anxiety vis-à-vis the future that has prevailed in these two countries; there is fear about the chaos that could result under the pressure of the street, where the protests have only one thing in common: opposition to the former regime. Meanwhile, predicting an agreement over a way out, or a political alternative, is in the realm of clairvoyance. This is clearly visible through the ongoing protests at Tahrir Square in Cairo, where each week a new victim is denounced. Syria, Libya and Yemen are examples of the ability of the regime in these three countries to exploit domestic disintegration to gain an extra shot of life. "What is your alternative?" the regime asks its opponents, and those demanding change. This is despite the fact that responsibility for the lack of alternative lies, in the first place, with the policies of these regimes, which have long been clamping down on any voice of dissent, and fragmenting any unified institution, so that the regime's institutions are the only cohesive ones, and the only ones able to exert power over anything. All "weapons" have been put to use: from boosting the sectarian and factional identities of the regime, to securing loyalty through clientelism, when this works, or oppression when the temptation of material gain does not work. This was no haphazard act, but rather a policy that is well-implemented, and one with clear objectives. This is what has led today to the absence of organized opposition parties, able to take power if the regime packs its bags and leaves, as the protestors are demanding. The Arab spring has turned into an "Arab hell," as the writer Taher bin Jalloun said in Newsweek magazine. Although he blames this on leaders like Moammar Qaddafi and Bashar al-Assad, who "do not like the spring season," as bin Jalloun says, the reality is that Qaddafi, Assad and others have been "wise" to the coming of this spring, and had begun their preparations to confront it a long time ago. They are reaping the fruits by heading off any possible heir to power or an alternative thereto!
