One of the myths that many Americans have subscribed to throughout history is that an American style, two party democracy is the automatic result of any popular revolution. The recent “Arab Spring’ began in Egypt with social media- using crowds that began to protest against President Mubarak. Hosni Mubarak assumed the Presidency of Egypt after the assassination of Anwar Sadat by the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the same Muslim Brotherhood that has been a prime mover behind the revolution.

The United States supported the rebels and advised Mubarak to abdicate, which he did and was promptly arrested . Admittedly he was no model of democracy with his 30 year rule. But his conduct as a middle ground leader and dependable ally was unusual for the Middle East. In a region ruled by autocratic “presidents’ and outright kings, Egypt stood apart. Unfortunately, right from the beginning of the street demonstrations no one in the State Department seemed to really know exactly who the rebels were, what their goals were or who else was supporting them. In the days immediately following the fall of Mubarak, the Egyptian Army became the only identifiable source of authority in the country. Recent developments include statements by the Muslim Brotherhood about having Sharia Law as the basis of Egyptian civil government and that Mubarak will be brought to trial.

Has the revolution been a genuinely democratic one ? Will a two party system as in the United States be the standard ? Obviously not, since the imposition of Sharia eliminates the formation of a secular government. Previously Egypt had given Sharia no official status, and now this seems unavoidable. It remains to be seen how much this move into Islamic Fundamentalism will affect the previous delicate balance in the region. Democracy is a foreign concept in the Middle East, to date the only functioning democracy is Israel, and the Islamic Fundamentalists have no peaceful intentions for that nation.