Tonight, Mosaic continues our reporting on the situation in Egypt: Listen to the demonstrators' demands and take a look at Mubarak's new cabinet. Meanwhile, Dubai TV reports on the redeployment of police on Cairo's streets
as demonstrators are heard chanting "the people and the army are one."

As the protests progress, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the police and the army are seen in a very different light by the Egyptian people.

In June 2010, the killing of 28-year-old Khaled Said outraged Egyptian society. Said was beaten to death by two policemen for threatening to expose the rampant corruption within the police force by releasing a video that allegedly showed officers dividing up the evidence after a drug bust. This was not the first time action by Egyptian police generated the people's anger. The institution has been routinely accused of torture and human rights organizations have long reported that police brutality and torture have become systemic under President Hosni Mubarak's regime.

The army, on the other hand, is one of the most respected institutions in the country for helping overthrow Egypt's monarchy in 1952 and for its role in the 1973 war against Israel. Today, the army released a statement saying that "freedom of expression" was guaranteed to all citizens using peaceful means and vowed not to fire on demonstrators who have “legitimate grievances.”

So what does this mean for the 'march of millions' that is planned for tomorrow if the army does not back the police?

At the height of the 2006 Lebanon-Israel war when over 300 Lebanese civilians had been killed, then U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice rejected calls for an immediate ceasefire, which she described as a "false promise." In justifying the Bush administration's position and its general policy of democracy promotion, Rice described Lebanon's plight as part of the "birth pangs of a new Middle East."

Whether U.S. foreign policy has rationalized violence and war as the price for the right kind of change or supported corrupt and tyrannical regimes under the false assumption that it is preventing the Islamists' ascension to power, the result has been one and the same: the U.S. has stood strong in the face of progress. It could also be argued that it is partly to blame for causing the Middle East to miss Democracy's Third Wave. Western nations fear that regime change – of mostly authoritarian governments – could lead to chaos, but their attempt to maintain stability and order has come at the expense of the people's quest for not only better economic opportunities and political reform, but also dignity.

In December 2010, a different kind of birth pangs was ignited by the self-immolation of a young unemployed Tunisian man in Sidi Bouzid. His cry of desperation led a people fed up with poor living conditions, rampant corruption, and high unemployment to rise up. The subsequent series of street demonstrations that erupted across Tunisia led to the collapse of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali's secular dictatorship. The ousting of Ben Ali sent shockwaves across undemocratic regimes throughout the Middle East and unleashed a wave of self-immolations in a number of countries. In Egypt, the fear of copycat suicide attempts led the government to "[forbid] gas stations to sell to people not in cars and placed security agents wielding fire extinguishers outside government offices," according to Twitterers.

As Egyptians took to the street, their supporters followed hashtag Jan25 and watched in amazement as thousands defied police in what was dubbed the "Day of Rage". YouTube videos allowed viewers to witness a brave young man stare down a water cannon to cheers of "ya gada'a" or "you brave one" and hear thousands chant slogans pleading: “Leave, leave, leave, for good, let our country see the light." Yesterday's particularly violent repression against anti-government demonstrators in the port city of Suez and the fierce level of resistance there led some to label the city Egypt's Sidi Bouzid.

Despite the government's efforts to hamper organizing by cutting off internet service, suspending cell and landline phone service and imposing a curfew, Egyptians continued to march in the thousands. For the fourth consecutive day, enraged Egyptians defied authorities again through another "Day of Rage."

Understandably, a succession of observers immediately pointed to the different economic, social, and political realities in Tunisia in contrast to Egypt, Jordan, or Yemen. However, one thing is certain: their people all share the same grievances. Oppressed people everywhere are watching as the Arab world's yearning for political reform and social justice has been awakened.

The refrain heard on the street is that Tunisian air is blowing towards the people of the Middle East and North Africa. This unprecedented infectious mobilization has made it obvious that people are no longer willing to be ruled by either authoritarian regimes or religious fundamentalists. Now more than ever, it seems that a youth-led revolutionary movement is indeed the only way to enact an empowering change that serves the needs of all citizens.

As of today, shaken Arab rulers will think twice before underestimating their people again. Regardless of whether Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak joins Tunisia's Ben Ali in Saudi Arabia and despite the fact that it is too early to predict if these uprisings will mark the Middle East's own Autumn of Nations, it is safe to say these movements have already inspired millions by displaying the power of grassroots activism.

Tunisian poet Abu al-Qasim al-Shabi's verse "When people decide to live, destiny shall obey, and one day…the slavery chains must be broken" has never seemed more relevant than today.

I arrived in Tunis on January 1, only a few days after a wave of rallies had erupted due to the suicide of an unemployed college graduate, who torched himself after police confiscated his fruit cart, cutting off his only source of income. Mohammed Bouazizi, 26, sold fruit and vegetables without the necessary vendor's permit in the town of Sidi Bouzid, located 160 miles from the country's capital Tunis.

At the time, Tunisians had been protesting for a couple of weeks over poor living conditions, high unemployment, government corruption and repression. Three people had been killed in the protests by the time of my arrival. The atmosphere was tense, public protests were rare in Tunisia where dissent was usually repressed; however, no one I spoke to in Tunis believed then that these demonstrations would lead to the ouster of President Zein El Abidine Ben Ali who eventually fled the country to Saudi Arabia after ruling Tunisia for 23 years.

The Jasmine Revolution, as it is dubbed now, was not televised on Tunisia's main television station, Tunisie7, nor did it make headlines in the local press, but the news spread like wildfire on Facebook, YouTube, mobile phone, and to a lesser extent on Twitter (most of the tweets were from outside Tunisia).

Prior to my arrival to Tunis, I had spent the past five weeks in the UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Territories debating social media, its impact on youth, and its relationship with journalism in the Arab world with my interlocutors.

It is very easy, but over-simplistic and naive to decide on a social media interpretation for the Jasmine Revolution, as we have been witnessing by many bloggers and self-appointed Middle East experts, many of whom neither speak Arabic nor have spent an extended period of time in the Middle East. They desperately want to convince us that Tunisians needed an external technological Western invention in order to succeed. A Twitter revolution of some sorts, as they previously labeled the Iranian Velvet Revolution, as though Arab masses were not capable on their own of saying "enough is enough."

Certainly social media was used as a communication tool for Tunisians to air their frustrations with the economy, unemployment, censorship, and corruption. But many factors lead to its success, such as a well organized trade unions movement, and the most potent weapon in the Arab world, the youth.

Population ageing is widespread across the world, but most Arab countries have been experiencing a youth explosion. More than one third of them are now unemployed. Tunisia is a bit different since it is one of the few Arab countries that opted for a family planning policy initiated during the rule of its first president, Habib Bourguiba. Tunisia, however, has also adopted a development plan with a focus on higher education, leaving a large number of young college graduates unemployed.

When I was driving around in Tunis, posters of President Zein El Abidine Ben Ali were sprinkled throughout the city with the slogan, "Together We Meet Challenges," a slogan meant to tout his plan of development by focusing on job creation, increasing revenue and enhancing Tunisia's positioning and influence on the regional and international scales. This obviously has failed, leaving a country of over- educated youth, many of whom are unemployed or doing menial jobs. Mohammed Bouazizi was the catalyst for their revolution.

Today, millions of Arab youth are disenchanted with politics and live a dramatic rupture with the state. Restrictions on freedom of expression, though improving in several countries, dominate the mass media in the Arab world. Social media has in many instances opened the door for them not only to share ideas, but also to take action. We've seen a vivid example of this during the Jeddah floods when the Saudi government tried to suppress the news about the devastation caused by nature due to poor infrastructure in the Arab world's richest country, but the news quickly spread on Facebook and the internet by concerned young Saudis. We've witnessed a bread revolution in Egypt, also driven by high unemployment and poverty; again initially transmitted to the outside world by young bloggers before it became international headlines.

Throughout history, when social discontent can no longer be contained, people have taken to the street to demand change. Having the most rudimentary technology, or none at all have not prevented these movements, a case in point being hand printed pamphlets distributed prior to the French Revolution, Gandhi's ability to inspire and mobilize through the exponential power of word of mouth, and the leaflets and tape recordings of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini speeches that were smuggled into the country prior to the Iranian Revolution.

Mohammed Bouazizi's self immolation was the expression not only of his despair, but that of youth throughout Tunisia ready to explode. Although they are an educated tech-savvy generation who were able to use social media as a tool, the underlying force was not a byproduct of this and the current situation would have come to pass with or without it.

Crediting social media with these revolutions however, trivializes them and does a disservice to the deep rooted issues that cause them.

As I was leaving Tunis on January 4, news spread again like wildfire of Mohammed Bouazizi's death at a hospital in the town of Ben Arous. Today, Mohsen Bouterfif died. Mohsen doused himself in gasoline and set himself on fire on Thursday after a meeting with the mayor of the small city of Boukhadra who was unable to provide him with a job and housing. Boukhadra is in Algeria.

Article first published on the Huffington Post

For a number of Arab countries, including Bahrain, Jordan, and Egypt, 2010 witnessed yet another round of disappointing parliamentary elections.  

In all three countries, ruling parties faced serious competition from the opposition. However, as elections neared and campaigns heated up, the undermining of opposition parties intensified. The authoritarian regimes' methods ranged from media censorship and mass arrests to violent crackdowns.

On October 23, 2010, Bahrain, the only Gulf state that allows political organizations known as "societies," held its third parliamentary elections. The predominantly Shiite Gulf state, ruled by a Sunni government, managed to pull off a reasonably free but unfair election. Granted, no reports of direct electoral fraud emerged after the election but it was preceded by a crackdown on government critics, a clampdown on the media, the intimidation of opposition members, and arrest of prominent activists.

Undeterred, the Shiite-led Wefaq Party participated and swept 18 of the 40-seat Council of Representatives. But for Bahrain’s Shiite majority that has long complained of discrimination in accessing government jobs and housing, the election did not lead to a change in the political makeup of the government since the members of the upper house, Bahrain’s main legislative body, are directly appointed by the king.

Unlike Bahrain where main opposition group Al-Wefaq and Sunni Islamist groups Al-Asalah and Al-Menbar participated in the elections, Egypt and Jordan’s opposition parties chose to boycott theirs. The hope that elections in those two countries might provide a glimpse into democratization in the Middle East were quickly dashed as the rigging or manipulation of the vote was carefully crafted long before election day. 

On November 9, 2010, Jordan held parliamentary elections that were also perceived as free but unfair. The Jordanian government passed a new electoral law earlier that year that was viewed by the opposition as favoring tribal allegiances at the expense of political and social platforms. This led the Muslim Brotherhood and its political wing, the Islamic Action Front, to boycott the elections citing a “lack of genuine desire for reform” on the part of the government.

As a result, loyalists to Jordan's King Abdullah II and tribal-affiliated candidates won most of the upper and lower house seats. And although the boycott damaged the credibility of the elections, the royal family was able to cling on to power domestically while preserving its democratic image internationally.

On November 28, 2010, Egypt held its parliamentary elections after violently clamping down on the opposition. In the weeks and months leading up to the parliamentary election, the government carried out wide-scale sweeps, targeting members and supporters of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. Despite the latter's participation in the first round, it failed to secure any seats, citing vote rigging, fraud and ballot stuffing. 

Both the liberal Wafd Party and the Muslim Brotherhood boycotted the run-off round on December 5, 2010 and with 97 percent control of the People's Assembly, President Hosni Mubarak’s ruling National Democratic Party managed to further tighten its grip on power in Egypt.

The electoral farce held in Bahrain, Jordan, and Egypt is part of what has become a familiar political game aimed at diffusing Arab anger and frustration with stagnating and unpopular regimes. Indeed, Arabs are growing tired of meaningless elections that merely offer a facade for change but leave them even more cynical about the possibility of a democratic transition of power.  

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index for 2010 classified all three countries as “authoritarian” and the Middle East and North Africa region as the most repressive globally. How much longer will these crumbling regimes be able to quell popular mobilization? And if boycotting campaigns keep on failing to delegitimize these regimes, one has to wonder what opposition parties will do next.

Share your thoughts below