The Arab spring has not failed, but the branches have withered and the fields have grown wildly, without any pruning. And just like some plants wrap around small wires and columns until they block the view and prevent the growth of fruits, there was a fascination which made people's predisposition to believe that change has occurred push them to support any alternative for the previously dominant situation. The Arab intellectuals and political elite had not yet recovered from the first shock generated by a street without leaders, that the second wave of the roaring spring came to sweep the mistakes and violations committed in the name of the legitimacy of the ballot boxes. And for the first time ever, problematic questions emerged in regard to the elections' overruling of the action on the street or the street's overruling of the legal and procedural mechanisms that guarantee the expression of the will. The difference is that the spontaneity with which the sentiments of anger and wrath are expressed on the street is more powerful than any voting, preceded by campaigns and psychological, cultural, and political preparations to persuade the voters. What is interesting is that the various types of revolutions known around the world, which allowed the surfacing of the values of freedom, parity, justice, equal opportunity, fair competition and the rejection of segregation among other cosmic principles, did not accomplish their goals within months or years. Indeed, it took them decades to instill the culture of the revolution which had its victims. And what happened with the Arab spring remains closer to an eruption that exploded after it reached the point of suffocation, and just like in the May 1968 revolution in France, the students and youth will play a leading role that goes beyond the limits of universities and reaches the factories, fields, and administrations. But the Arab wrath did not find a leader similar to French President De Gaulle, while the intelligence monitoring devices did not pick up the waves of the winds, although they were clear on people's faces and at the level of the various phenomena. Because the psychological barrier was shattered, it is now impossible to revive the culture of patience which burdened the people and subjected them to unjust and oppressive ruling regimes. As for the post-spring rulers, they might have thought that the people's patience will not run out again or that the ballot boxes will allow the perpetration of the prohibited, thus demonstrating a behavior that was more opposed and rejected than it was favored and tolerated. What is noticeable at the level of the developments in Egypt is that they almost pushed the Egyptians to choose between blood and surrender, between the acceptance of the authority produced by the ballot boxes and the staging a coup against the coup. But what difference is there between using the street and threatening with violence, and what used to be imposed by the rulers who were toppled by the first wave of the Arab spring? Although the latter did not have the support of a public which is capable of expressing its position freely, their successors do not wish to succumb to a more liberated form of expression, i.e. demonstrations on the street. The ballot boxes are not a Catholic marriage. They are rather a contract that can be challenged by whichever side, knowing that in contractual law, the breaching of the contract imposes its annulment. On the other hand, those downplaying the influence of the angry street are seeking its protection, which means that the behavior is the same in both cases. Nonetheless, it differs at the level of the threats to face the unknown and at the level of an experience that is not too far from that of the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria, which lost its way while attempting to regain the people's trust and saw the emergence of offshoots, some of which took to the mountains and carried weapons. The latter experience caused scars and wounds that made the Algerian more careful and cautious about anything smelling of violence and bloodshed. The Egyptian experience is not taking place on an isolated island and has started to expand to Libya and Tunisia, while the Algerian one remained limited to its time and border. And this pushes towards the belief that the convictions reached by the Algerians after more than ten years of bloodshed, will be shared by other populations in Tunisia and Libya in the event of a deviation away from the democratic course. It might have been better for the supporters of deposed President Muhammad Morsi to realize that the same mistakes will lead to the same results, knowing that the opportunity given to the Algerian Salvation Front to become a key partner in political action did not come around again when it had to engage in an open confrontation with the regime. At the same time, it kept reiterating that it was adopting a peaceful approach and that those opposing democracy tended to use violence. Opportunities do not always recur and the Muslim Brotherhood organization in Egypt – after it heard President Morsi recognizing there were mistakes – can distance itself from the presidency, which has become closer to the lost paradise in Andalusia. This would not require more than a return to square one, i.e. an agreement over the general framework and roadmap during the transitional phase. Once this happens, whoever was supported by the street will not spare any legal means to express that, knowing that time does not always stop while awaiting the adoption of the decisions and the latter must race with it before it is too late.
