Uprisings are a part of history. From the Greeks against the Persians to Americans against the British, revolutions are won and lost just as quickly as they are started. The Arab Spring region experienced several revolutions in 2010-2011. Some of these revolutions were somewhat successful (Tunisia and Yemen) while others were not (Egypt and Syria). What is clear about the Arab Spring uprisings is that many people needed things to change and they were willing to sacrifice it all, including their very lives to see it done. The Arab revolts became a major source of news in 2011. What sparked the tragic and turbulent series of events began in 2010 with the self-immolation of a young fruit vendor by the nameof Mohamed Bouazizi. This singular event sparked a series of unparalleled demonstrations and protests in Tunisia. The success of which led to another wave of unrest in Egypt, spreading to Algeria and Jordan, Yemen as well as other nations within the region. While there were varying causes from nation to nation, there were common and reoccurring themes. These are:

1. a lack of democracy

2. wide-spread corruption

3. human rights violations

4. extreme poverty

5. economic decline and unemployment

6. rising food prices

7. a large number of educated and dissatisfied young people

These causes led some protestors to attempt to displace regimes while others demanded improvement of living conditions, leaving the main foundation of the government unchallenged. The ruling elite of the various countries had different ways of handling the demonstrations and protests. Some introduced top-down reform, attempting to 'buy' social peace. Others took the more aggressive stance and repressed via armed violence.

Armed violence and ineffective reform created more havoc in the Middle East. As of August 2012, four countries experienced overthrown governments: Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen. This meant president fled. Presidents like President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, President Zine el Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia and overthrown Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, killed October 20, 2011. Yemen saw a president resign with President Abdal-Rabah Mansour Al-Hai taking his position in February 2012.

While the demonstrations propelled some changes in these nations, nations like Syria have not seen much progress with demonstrations resulting in a continuous and violent conflict, a civil war among opposition forced and Assad loyalists. Stemming from Bahraini protest aimed at accomplishing greater equality and political freedom majority Shia population, the Gulf Cooperation Council intervention (GCC) led by Saudi Arabia crushed their efforts. Interestingly, beginning January 2011, Saudi Arabia saw similar protests occur. Other Gulf states began seeing demonstrations as well.

Jordan for example, because of the continued protests, have led to three changes of cabinet. Thus the Arab Spring uprisings gained the label of 'revolutions'. Revolutions may be defined as subordinate groups attempting to transform social foundations of political power. However, demonstrations in some countries did not wish to transform the foundations. Therefore, it is unclear if the uprisings could fall effectively into this category of 'revolutions'. What is clear, is that the causes of the revolts were led by people that were tired of the growing injustices and wanted to do something to change it, to make their lives better.

It is no surprise that when an economy declines and there are no jobs available, people suffer. The populace especially suffers when the government lies to them and allows corruption among their ranks. Add to that more young people achieving higher levels of education, the populace had enough and reached a limit where could not tolerate their current state. As countries protested and made some progress, it created a domino effect that led to more countries participated in mass demonstrations.

In the end, people merely want to be treated equally. They want to have a chance at a life where they can work and put food on the table for their families. When that possibility is taken from them and then replaced with an existence filled with poverty and suffering, it is no wonder people protested. The Arab uprisings show how a people can reach a limit and then break, resulting in a fight for survival and equality.

Different results came for different countries. As was discussed earlier, Tunisia and Egypt had contrasting results. Tunisia experienced positive results with the country experiencing changes for the better. "In Tunisia, an elected assembly has produced the most liberal political ground-rules in the Arab world. In the words of the outgoing premier, Ali Larayedh,...

Tunisia and Egypt both have Sunni Muslim majorities, a little oil, and a history of secular government. It is interesting to see how different their outcomes became. Another thing to note is that Tunisia was the first place where the revolts began with seven other self-immolation suicides attempted before or after the Bouazizi. Their uprising left a powerful as well as immediate effect on many of the Egyptians and helped start the protests in Cairo on January 25, 2011.
Going back to the similarities, both countries experienced unequal incomes, expensive food prices, ageing despots, and youth unemployment. Where Tunisia went right lies in the character of the Islamist groupings that won the first free elections in each nation. "Ennahda in Tunisia, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt." (The Guardian) The Muslim Brotherhood made several mistakes when they took power. They drafted a constitution that left many of the revolutionaries dissatisfied. "Fearing theocracy, some appealed to the military, whose head, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, duly ordered the arrest of the first freely elected president, and killed the revolution." (The Guardian)

Unlike Tunisia, (which had a small army) Egypt had an army that acted almost as a 'quasi-commercial' enterprise with business dealings in cars, cements, factories that produce fertilizers, resorts, and even had control over hospitals and the building of roads. By employing nearly 900,00 soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians, they literally run Egypt. In fact, after the coup, one poll discovered over seventy percent of Egyptians retained confidence in the Egyptian army. Along with the power of the Egyptian army is the lack of urbanization in Egypt.

Tunisia, unlike Egypt is more urbanized. They are also wealthier as a whole with less surface area to live in compared to Egypt which is six times bigger. "Tunisians, on average, are wealthier ... almost twice as high as Egyptians, and at the time of the uprising the World Bank classified more than 80% of the population as 'middle class'. In Egypt, about 40% of the population lived on less than two dollars a day." (Gelvin 39) With neoliberalism and privatization breeding a new social class in Egypt, termed 'fat cats' or 'whales of the Nile' some became wealthy while many became very poor. This certainly contributed to the way the revolts would end.

Essentially, the people had more power in Tunisia and therefore had a say in how the country would run. Egypt however, the people had less power and had to deal with a large and fairly strong army that could easily suppress any attempts at changing things in a way that did not benefit them. The Egyptians also did not have the money Tunisians had as many only lived on a few dollars a day. Money is a means of acquiring and expressing power. Lastly, Tunisia was the first to begin the uprisings. They were the ones that felt the need to express themselves first, leading to the people of Egypt taking a stand among other countries.

These other oil-poor countries were Syria and Yemen. Like Tunisia and Egypt, Syria and Yemen did not have hereditary monarchies, and began uprisings shortly after the others revolted. "The presence of monarchism and oil wealth reduce the likelihood of an uprising by establishing barriers to protest escalation ... offer citizens financial incentives that help pacify them. Several Arab regimes attempted to use this tactic by increasing public salaries and subsidies on staple goods." (Williamson and Abadeer) Both countries are also resource-poor and lacked the army or money to suppress or placate the public. The differences then lie in who supported who and what that support led to because both countries had a military with loyal supporters, but what the Syrian regime had that the Yemen regime did not was support from Iran.

A concerted Iranian effort to keep the Syrian regime from falling in defeat by the Syrian rebel involved equipment, introduction of more fighters, and sufficient training, making the rebels have to fall back and fall into a deadlock with the regime. "The regime was saved, however, by a concerted Iranian effort to prop up the Syrian military with training, equipment, and even fighters. The conflict is now deadlocked, with foreign powers providing backing to their preferred factions." (Williamson and Abadeer) The Yemen regime was not as lucky and Saleh slowly lost power and was forced to step down due to diplomatic intervention by other foreign powers. In other words, the Syrian regime received support from Iran. Without the Iranian support, the Syrian rebels would have won. Yemen received support not for…