Two years ago the Arab Spring began with the self-immolation of a young street seller in Tunisia who was protesting the arbitrary injustice and lack of opportunity: It led to the downfall of the Tunisian president.

The western world had hoped that this downfall, and the subsequent unrest in other Arab states, would lead to liberal and secular democracies in the Middle East. Instead, the wave of popular uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East that shook the region’s autocratic regimes in 2011 and 2012 saw a wide spectrum of Islamist parties win the elections.

The Tunisian vote handed the Ennahda Islamists a 42 percent majority of parliamentary seats; as a result, they are now the senior partner in a coalition government with the secularists. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice coalition and the Salafist Noor party together received more than two-third of the votes.

Hence, several commentators and journalists in the West have started claiming that the “the Arab spring has turned into an Islamist winter.”

“We tend to see the emergence of Islamist parties, or the religiously conservatives, as the demise of democracy, as a backward step, as an Islamist winter announcing the next Iran,” Reza Aslan, an Iranian-American writer and scholar of religions at the University of California declares during a briefing in Brussels. “But this is the ridiculously simplistic narrative conceived by journalists designed for 12-year-old readers.”

“The reality is,” he continues, “that 96 percent of Egyptians are religiously conservative. They represent the majority view in Egypt. So if you think religion is not going to play a role in the future of Egyptian politics, you have not been paying attention. You may not like it, you may not agree, but you’ll have to accept it anyway since you have nothing to say. In a democracy, the will of the majority is bound to be reflected in the political round.”

An incorrect appreciation of the situation

Instead, Middle-Eastern researchers and journalists in Europe and the United States were convinced that the Arab revolutionaries were looking to establish secular liberal democracies. This was clearly a failure to understand the broader region’s realities and to correctly interpret the situation in Egypt or Tunisia; hence, their dismay with the result of the elections in these countries.

Additionally, Aslan says, “There is that perception that the Muslim Brotherhood is systematically rolling back the rights of women and minorities in Egypt. A lot has been said about the new Constitution in this regard.

There is probably a lot wrong with the Constitution but not Islam. As far as Islam is concerned, it is exactly the same as before. So it is quite possible that we exaggerate the threat from a distance.”Besides, Claire Spencer, head of Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House adds, “when we speak about women’s rights here in the West, we have this tendency to stress the rights of secular women. But women from Ennahda have rights as well.”

This does not necessarily mean that all is well is Egypt and Tunisia though; the parties in power face all kinds of challenges, from translating their vague promises into pursuable policies to dealing with skeptics, both domestically and abroad, whilst trying to cope with the difficult socioeconomic situation.

“It is all well and easy as long as you are in the opposition and you are not responsible for anything,” Aslan says. “You only deal with social services and people appreciate you for doing it. And then, when there is a common goal like getting rid of a dictatorship, it is still easy. But building things up is much more difficult.”

“When you are responsible you have to moderate and succeed, like the AK party in Turkey,” Aslan goes on. “Or you don’t moderate and fail. And this is probably the best thing that could happen: give them an opportunity to fail.

“The shine of Islamist parties may then begin to wane and people will see them for what they are: just another party seeking power. This said, the real disappointment for me is the appalling way in which the opposition has failed to present a cohesive alternative other than point the finger at the government.”

There certainly has been some incompetence from the Muslim Brotherhood, Aslan thinks, but the opposition is just as incompetent: “They have refused to participate in the elections. This is very bad, this is a disaster. The secular opposition has decided to stop playing because they think the game has been rigged. It has been rigged but it does not mean you have to stop playing or you may well be shooting yourself in the foot.”

Blocking the governing parties

“The issue here,” Spencer intervenes, “is that the fear of Islamization has been used by the secular opposition, in Tunisia and in Egypt, to block the governing parties; as a result, these have not been able to attend the economy. And this is bad.

“The opposition should let the government do its work. In Tunisia, the political work has been screwed by parties speaking about secularism, women, the veil, but this is not the real issue. This is not answering the people’s will. The vast majority wants a more transparent system, justice, employment; instead, the opposition is making unacceptable proposals and it has become a zero-sum game.”

But democracy is not about a zero-sum game; it is all about compromises. The opposition should be constructive and let the government do its work. Arab societies have still a lot to learn about the rules of democracy. Change does not happen overnight; after all, it also took time for some European countries after the war to become democratic.

“If elections are reasonably open and fair, as they certainly were in Tunisia, we should support the outcome,” Spencer says. “But the problem is that the United States and Europe seem to be absolutely paranoid about Islamism.

“For years, their interlocutors were the Western-educated, secular activists and they have long been unable to engage with other political actors. Now they have to find new interlocutors.”

Reza declares: “Whereas the previous U.S. administration made no differentiation between the different Islamist movements and groups and assimilated them all to al-Qaeda, this administration reckons that there are some parties they can talk to, like the Muslim Brotherhood … But this is still a far cry from actually supporting them.

“The Obama administration is not interested in the Muslim Brothers, nor in promoting democracy for that matter. What it is really interested in is stability, and more often than not, this comes at the expense of democracy. This is why dictators have always been our best friends.”

The revolution is not over yet

The key to political stability in these countries, Aslan thinks, is economic stability; jobs and economic growth have to be promoted. There is now a conscious decision on the part of the U.S. administration that the only way to do this is through debt relief and an IMF package.

At the same time, it may be difficult to revive the economy in the absence of political stability — hence, the U.S. administration’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood. The problem though is that an IMF loan will come with strings attached, including a request to put an end to fuel and food subsidies. And this may well make the situation of the Egyptians worse before it gets better.

Many in the West still seem to hope that, in the end, Islamist parties will fail and Arab people will then vote for Western-oriented liberal parties. They do not seem to recognize though that the social and economic crisis currently taking place throughout Europe and the United States has already raised serious questions about the nature and future of liberal capitalism. And Arab people are very much aware of that.

Second, if the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the Ennahda party in Tunisia, do not meet popular expectations in the coming months and years, it is the Salafists, much more than the secular parties, who are likely to capitalize on this to expand their own influence. “Salafist elements are already at work,” says Spencer, “there is a real fear that radicals might take over.” So, it may well be in everyone’s interest that the parties now in government succeed.

Sometimes, change doesn’t happen as quickly as the people would like, and oftentimes it can be a messy process. We seem to consider that the revolution in the Arab countries is over, but just because we have stopped paying attention does not mean it is finished.

The Arab revolution is probably still under way. And one of its most precious gains at this stage is that the Arab people have stopped being afraid. As one Egyptian man recently put it : “We know the way to Tahrir Square now.”