Why, a year on from the Arab spring, do we limit our judgment on political progress and constitutional reform to just the Arab world? The Arab nations make up some 22 countries and around 280 million people who are clearly experiencing an "awakening", which we all watched unfold first in Tunisia and then saw progressively cascade across many of the countries in the Arab League.

But why have we in the west limited our focus to this narrow band? Maybe it makes us feel comfortable, assuming our governments are a glowing example for others, in particular Muslim nations, to follow. Or is it because it neatly fits into our view of the "Arab" and, if so, do we not widen our scope then to include the Middle East (18 countries) Greater Middle East (38), Near Eastern (31), or Muslim-majority countries (49, such as Turkey and Tajikistan), hoping that a more compliant Islam emerges? The catchy heading "Arab spring" or "Arab awakening" limits the international and regional debate to a narrow prism.

Is the Arab awakening really a 21st-century struggle for democracy by 22 countries? I think not. I was deployed to different parts of the Middle East throughout my military career and since my retirement I have travelled extensively throughout the region. The current unrest across the region is mainly a statement of the failure of the social contract between government and the people. The causes are little different to those that brought about the French revolution. They are rooted in politics, indifference and injustice. Today's uprisings focused on regimes that failed to meet expectations, and failed to provide opportunities of employment and economic prosperity for their people.

And if we are debating progress in Iraq, Kuwait and Bahrain, we should also consider Iran. The Islamic Republic was supposed to have had a "Persian awakening" in 2005 and again in 2009, prompting "fair" elections that had been forced upon government by public opinion and the green movement. Yet the regime doesn't appear to have made any significant concessions, changes or constitutional adjustments.

Its response has been a brutal stamping out of public protest and continued interference in the 22 countries we have now placed in the spotlight. And a harsh spotlight that is. Bahrain is a telling example. Here is a country that enjoys the 10th freest economy in the world and was the first Arab country to institute unemployment benefit. It has empowered women unlike any other – yet it will be hounded in the press for failing its people.

Of course, Bahrain could and should do better. But Iran is a bigger, and more immediate problem. Iran's cold, manipulative hand is encouraging violence by organised gangs, and inciting public protest to its own national self-interest. Yet little international attention is given to its political freedoms and its reform programme. The Arab spring is to be welcomed – but welcomed for what it is, not simply what we would wish it to be. Our debate must be broader and our judgments wider than those we impose on a select 22 countries. The social contract and underlying intellectual case was, in the 18th century, hotly and globally debated – and with good reason, for the people's lot was truly wretched.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote 200 years ago: "If there were a nation of Gods, it would govern itself democratically. A Government so perfect is not suited to men." We should be careful of whom and what we judge.

• Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree