It is hard to believe that at least a glimpse of hope remains from the Arab Spring. It seems that Rachid al-Ghannoushi, the Tunisian An-Nahda leader, wants to imply that the Islamists in power burnt themselves like candles in order to provide light in the darkness. The Islamic leader has provided a ray of hope by acknowledging that his government committed an error of judgment, although he failed to use this acknowledgement to practice constructive self evaluation. Instead, he seems to be working to form a non-partisan unity cabinet. Al-Ghannoushi is rightfully clinging to the formation of a cabinet based on the results of the voting ballots. However, the interim periods calling for historical consensuses do not actually clash with the political objectives, provided that peaceful power rotation becomes a steady tradition. When it comes to the Tunisian case, the most important part does not consist of the nature of the government that might be formed to overcome the present crisis, but rather of the road map that all the parties can agree on. Several Islamic groups are now alluding to their acceptance by the West as a passport for them. However, this acceptance was warranted under different circumstances when the hope of coexisting with the Islamic movements was growing slim. The moderate voices and experiences succeeded in dissipating the western fears. However, the important part of this equation does not consist of convincing the West to open up to these movements but rather to convince the concerned masses that these movements can actually induce the required change. The people's will – that brought the Islamic governments to power under the banner of the democratic legitimacy – has the final say in accepting or rejecting these movements. Tunisia played a pioneering role in overthrowing tyranny. In light of this fact, Tunisia may proceed with the peaceful power transfer without the need for any storms or fires. Egypt provides a perfect example for the replacement of dialogue with bullets: more victims and losses can now be expected in the absence of a civilized dialogue to support coexistence and security. The uprising of the people in the street constituted quite an interesting development. The movement of the street was traditionally based on the nationalistic issues, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the relationship with the west. It then started to tackle the internal dilemmas, namely the issues pertaining to rejecting tyranny and the lack of democracy, freedom, and social justice. This development indicates that time will not go backwards because the Street's reaction to injustice and tyranny is paramount. However, instead of using this fact to move into the world of freedom and openness, things rather turned into quasi-confrontations between different conflicting camps. The most dangerous part is that these practices have almost become locked in an "opposites' equation" between those parties who are clinging to power under the pretext of democratic legitimacy, and those parties who are calling for implementing the principles of the revolution that go beyond "electoral gains." Undoubtedly, the masses of protestors have taken back to the streets in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya due to the state of disappointment vis-à-vis the governments' performance in the post revolution phase. Democracy is relative rather than absolute. The best kinds of rulers are those who submit to the power of criticism. Early elections, constitutions, the separation of powers, and the determination of areas of expertise: all these are mechanisms aimed at comprehending the tendency to development. All these concepts are prone to discussion. In their quest for unity, the Europeans used voting ballots and referendums as a means to learn the people's positions. Other deeply rooted democracies also revert to the option of conducting referendums when faced with the dilemma of split ideas and opinions. So why not use this method in the countries of the so-called Arab Spring in order to relieve the people from the hardship of street protests? This is probably related to mentalities rather than actions. Democratic solutions call for democratic people who respect pluralism and differences. Several tragedies could have been avoided with less impulsiveness and more wisdom. The Islamic governments failed to make achievements in short lapses of time; however, they could have succeeded if they had waited longer. There is a need to return to the voting ballots, but this return will now be ridden with too many tragedies following the outburst of the rivers of blood. Power is not an objective on its own. Therefore, maintaining power should not be a reason to kill or be killed. With a little patience and a lot of meditation, one can achieve something more constant and steadier: the authority of a state that protects everybody under the rule of law, stability and coexistence.
