The Effects of Aggressively Pushing for and Intervening in Sovereign Nations

It is this author’s strong belief that the Arab Spring in Egypt has created a fundamentally good thing. Whereas before no level of democratic process typified the way in which the government ruled the people, as a result of the Arab Spring in Egypt, elections have been held, a president has been selected, a constitution drafted, and a representative parliament has been formed. As opposed to before where Mubarak’s dictatorship was a seemingly endless definition of the future of the nation, the people of Egypt are now able to take part in their own right to self-determination, sovereignty, and the democratic process (el Faki 1). In this way, the effect of the Arab Spring has been profound in helping a nation to modernize and realize a long-held wish that democracy would come to its inhabitants. The cons to such a process, of course, involve the painful transition to democracy. It is not the argument of this author that such a transition is without its drawbacks. Whereas Egypt has been controlled by one form of absolute monarch or dictator for the better part of the past several hundred years, providing a smooth and painless segue into a democracy would be all but impossible. As such, some of the cons that have followed the process are the actions of key groups that feel that their rights have not been fully represented to a satisfactory extent within the confines of the democratic system. As such, these individuals have resorted to violence, coercion, and other illegalities as a means of expressing their own unique view.