Log in
For too long, we have reduced our political plight in the Arab world to the figure of the authoritarian ruler: he falls, and dictatorship falls with him, supposedly clearing the way—automatically and effortlessly—for freedom, democracy, and justice. Yet our experiences, both past and recent, suggest that the reality is far more complex. A ruler may fall, a regime may change, enlightened constitutions may be written, and free elections may be held—only for us to discover that authoritarianism has not entirely disappeared. It has merely changed form and found new channels through which to survive.
In the Arab world, authoritarianism is not simply a ruler who monopolizes power; it is also a culture we can carry within us—one that survives the ruler’s fall and can even outlive the regime itself. It lives in the ideas, culture, and practices that place power above accountability, treat disagreement as a threat, and turn political opponents into enemies. It is a culture that makes us wait for a “saviour” or a “strong leader” rather than build institutions—a state governed by law, where no one is above accountability and no authority is beyond scrutiny.
A Culture of Authoritarianism
The harder question is: Why do we see disagreement as a threat—and keep looking for a strong ruler to silence those who think differently?
The autocrat does not create this culture from nothing; he draws his power from it, exploits its fears, and reinforces it. He thrives in a political and social environment shaped by fear, distrust, weak institutions, exclusion from public life, and a deeply rooted belief that authority should be obeyed rather than questioned. That is why defeating authoritarianism requires far more than replacing one ruler with another. It requires changing our entire relationship with power: from obedience to accountability, from submission to scrutiny, and from fear of authority to the right to challenge it. It means building institutions strong enough to constrain power—and a political culture in which no ruler is above the law.
But authoritarianism is not sustained by political structures alone. It also takes root in the way we think about power and disagreement. It is not merely a system in which a ruler monopolizes decision-making and suppresses freedoms; it is a mind-set that shapes how we understand authority, obedience, and political difference.
The Double Standard of Principles
More dangerously, this culture does not remain confined to those in power. It can spread through society, opposition movements, political parties, and elites. We begin to apply different standards depending on whose side we are on: we condemn repression when it targets us, but justify it when it targets our opponents.
The judiciary often exposes this double standard clearly. We demand judicial independence when it protects us, then question it when its rulings go against us. We may even remain silent when due process is violated simply because the target is a political opponent.
This is how the law gradually loses its meaning. Rights become selective, defended when they serve us and forgotten when they protect others. If freedom is only for us, justice only for our side, and the law only for our opponents, then we are not truly rejecting authoritarianism. We are only rejecting the possibility of becoming its victims.
The problem becomes even more serious when political convictions harden into closed ideologies.
From there, political disagreement can easily shift from differences over ideas and programs to personal hostility, then to accusations of treason and exclusion. We stop debating ideas and start questioning intentions. We stop responding to arguments and start looking for accusations to attach to those who make them. The dissenter becomes a traitor, the critic a conspirator, the person who disagrees an enemy, and anyone who refuses to fall into line becomes suspect.
Politics then moves from competition between projects to a struggle over legitimacy itself: Who has the right to speak? Who has the right to represent the nation? Who has the authority to decide who is “patriotic” and who is not?
The problem becomes even more serious when political convictions harden into closed ideologies. There is nothing inherently wrong with different religious, nationalist, left-wing, or liberal perspectives; pluralism is one of democracy’s foundations. The problem begins when conviction becomes absolute truth—when each side believes it does not merely hold one perspective among many, but possesses the truth itself, and that those who disagree are traitors, conspirators, or enemies.
At that point, disagreement ceases to be a competition between political projects and becomes a conflict between identities. Admitting a mistake becomes a defeat, and compromise is treated as betrayal. Once an idea becomes a closed certainty, questioning it is perceived as an attack, while excluding those who disagree is presented as a defence of the “pure” truth.
The Monopoly on Truth
Here lies one of the most dangerous dilemmas in Tunisia’s experience: disagreement does not remain a debate over what the state should be. It quickly becomes a struggle over who has the right to define the state, society, the nation, the economy, and the future.
Admitting a mistake becomes a defeat, and compromise is treated as betrayal.
When every side believes that it alone represents “the truth,” “the people,” or “the national interest,” democracy itself becomes a battlefield for eliminating disagreement rather than a means of managing it. Thus, even when we overthrow political authoritarianism, we may reproduce its logic and methods through other means: monopolizing truth instead of power, and excluding those who disagree instead of engaging them in dialogue.
This helps explain, in part, why democratic transitions have proved so difficult in our societies. At a certain moment, people were able to break through the barrier of fear and rise against authoritarianism. But they were not necessarily prepared to manage the pluralism that emerged once the public sphere opened up.
It was far easier to agree on what we rejected than on what we wanted to build. As trust weakened, institutions remained fragile, and divisions deepened, politics shifted from competition over programs to a struggle over who had the right to represent the state and society.
Yet blaming societies and their elites alone would be an unfair simplification. The culture of authoritarianism was shaped over decades by regimes that weakened institutions, narrowed the public sphere, and taught citizens that silence was safer than speaking out, and that proximity to power was more rewarding than holding it to account.
Democracy Is a Practice, Not a Moment
We cannot expect a society that has lived under fear for generations to become, overnight, a fully democratic society in practice. The fall of an autocrat may liberate society from fear, but it does not automatically liberate it from the prevailing culture of authoritarianism.
Democracy is not granted once a ruler falls. It is built when, through everyday practice, we learn that power is temporary, that disagreement is a right, and that the law stands above everyone.
Democracy does not mean that we all agree. It means accepting that no one owns the nation or the truth alone; that majorities can be wrong; that an opposition can become a majority; and that those who lose elections do not lose their place in the nation.
From Strong Leaders to Strong Institutions
Building democracy therefore requires more than changing who stands at the top of the state. It requires changing our relationship with power itself: moving from a culture that searches for leaders to one that trusts institutions; from loyalty to individuals to loyalty to rules; from obedience and allegiance to citizenship; from treating criticism as treason to recognizing it as a right; and from wanting to silence opponents to having the ability to confront them through dialogue and argument.
This does not mean that democracy is impossible in our societies. It means that it is more difficult than we imagined.
Democracy does not require perfect citizens or angelic politicians. It requires institutions that constrain power, rules that protect rights, and citizens willing to accept that disagreement is a normal part of public life. Democracy does not eliminate mistakes, but it prevents mistakes from becoming a permanent fate. Nor does it eliminate conflict, but it prevents conflict from turning into a war against the state and society.
The real question, therefore, is not: Are we ready for democracy? It is: Have we learned from the lessons of the past? And are we prepared to change the culture that made authoritarianism possible?
freedom is incomplete unless we accept the freedom of others
If we continue searching for the “just autocrat,” the “leader who never makes mistakes,” or the ruler who supposedly knows the people’s interests better than the people themselves, we will remain trapped in the same vicious circle, no matter how much the faces and slogans change.
But if we learn that freedom is incomplete unless we accept the freedom of others; that power must be subject to the law; that disagreement is not treason; and that institutions matter more than individuals, then democracy becomes possible—even if it remains difficult.
The real challenge, therefore, is not merely to overthrow the autocrat, but to dismantle the culture that gives him legitimacy, the mind-set that searches for him, and the logic that justifies his power.
When we accept disagreement, hold power accountable to the law, and defend the rights of our opponents as fiercely as our own, we do more than change rulers: we begin to dismantle the culture that makes authoritarianism possible.
For authoritarianism is not truly defeated when the autocrat falls; it is defeated when the culture that made his rule possible no longer has a place among us.
Photo caption: A Egyptian football player kicking Hosni Mubarak by Carlos Latuff
