Toppling leaders is one thing. Disposing of their governments is another

It is normal,because dictators do not build countries,they only build fortunes for their families.Take Libya for example,no army,no minitries,... .So when the dictator is gone,people find no tools with what they can govern.With time things will be OK in these countries and people will find a way to live in democrcies .

Regards

Ben Amar, I agree the best is to live in democracies. I hope time leads in that direction. Libyans will have a lot to be proud of if they can balance the interests of their city & desert people (Ghadafi was from the desert) and assure expatriate Libyans that this is the safe and correct time to come home and build the country.

But...
There is so much oil money at stake.
Outside powers always seem to prefer "one leader with whom we can negotiate" and not interfere with how that leader gets or uses power. The U.S., Italy, Israel, and even Egypt (and more) have real interests in who runs Libya. And all of them know how to work deals.

May we please have a wise and fair solution to this problem!!
The best solution will be one that doesn't have foreign influence written all over it -- but foreign assistance is sure to be needed.

What a joke!

Ben Amar said: "With time things will be OK in these countries and people will find a way to live in democrcies"

Ya … like IMMIGRATING TO the democracies in the WEST … are you kidding me? Do you think democracy will emerge out of the swamp of MIDDLE EASTERN KLEPTOCRACES? Wishful thinking … magical thinking …

morcc said: "Outside powers always seem to prefer … The U.S., Italy, Israel, and even Egypt (and more) have real interests in who runs Libya."

Why is it always the same with Arab/Muslims? Can't you accept the fact YOU CONTROL YOUR OWN LIVES/DESTINY? Why is it always someone else controlling you? Are you not actors? This is typical Arab/Muslim conspiracy theory BS … It's about them NOT US? HUH?

Wake up! You're in charge of your own fate … it's not about the Israelis … are you kidding me? It's about LOOKING IN THE MIRROR AND SEEING A VERY UGLY PICTURE. IT'S THE FACE OF THE ARAB NATION … POOR … UNEDUCATED … WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY … BURSTING AT THE SEEMS WITH A BABY BOOM … EXPLODING ON THE TV SETS OF THE WORLD!

When the post-war crowd in the West underwent the Baby Boom … the USA's democratic government CREATED AN ECONOMY THAT ROAD ITSELF TO WORLD DOMINATION FROM 1945 TO 2008 … (with a few hiccups in between for sure) … but the Arab/Muslim Baby Boom has been met with THE EXACT OPPOSITE … that's why you're seeing a boiling point being reached!

Will this lead to democracy? Why?

You need to build a civil society … education … separate judiciary … secular multi-parties … separate police … THE JURY'S STILL OUT … I'LL BE THE FIRST TO SAY … IT'S VERY UNLIKELY THAT DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS CAN EMERGE … Culture trumps EVERYTHING IN THE MIDDLE EAST … AND IT'S GOING TO DROWN ANY HOPE OF DEMOCRATIC CHANGE.

I HOPE I'M WRONG BUT I KNOW I'M RIGHT!

There is a commonplace, a rhetorical commonplace, that underpins most news reporting regarding those uprisings: that the "people" are on the side on political virtue. Are they? So far this spontaneous "virtue" has delivered no change, no real change beyond everyone being able to twitter and facebook and see oneself on "social networks". The Egyptian protests have triggered a palace coup from within the military oligarchy. The Tunisian uprising is leaving the country in a limbo. In Lybia, we shall see what happens, but one day we shall really know who used sectorial discontents and wove them into what looks like a "revolution", so as to gain the moral high ground - and keep the oil flowing. Revolutions that claimed popular virtue, 1789, 1917, and delivered epoch making changes in world politics, of how we see politics, were long, bloody, they turned inside out revered ideas and concepts. In the Middle East, the only one that really qualifies for that sort of forceful "virtue", is probably the Iranian Revolution - something changed, radically, in Islamic politics, of which we bear the brunt today. So, let us see what sort of radical changes, in politics, those three messy uprisings can deliver. My bet is that, so long as we talk reverently, rhetorically, of "the people" and assume "the people " are inherently "right" we may take the tree for the forest, and delude ourselves.

IN MY OPINION:

*As for the technocracy in the new regime, being profound on your own areas are very beneficial to the society with their skills and technocrats being dubbed with a "problem-solver's mind" is a pro although their specialization may not invoke national unity and whatever suggestions or laws they will uphold people or the electorate won't buy it because they don't have political capital they will have a tendency to remain unheard.

*In my opinion a democratic government will suit Egypt, one of the reasons would be the masses are pro for it, they want a democratic elections and after this recent event they will be even more in demand of their human rights and freedom and with the present state of Egypt the willpower and stronghold is in the people. Having just recently declared that the military will be conducting a fair elections within months time let us just hope that while managing the country they will be in a position not to seize power for themselves but to go along the lines of democracy.

*What just happened to Egypt is not a minor happening, this is a big event that affected the lives of million Egyptians and with the temporary regime there will be little change but a change that will benefit society as a whole. We cannot expect rapid growth and peace to be prevalent once more but as the saying goes it will take time to heal all wounds which is also true in the USA when they were struck with the Great Recession, it wasn't an overnight thing to solve but it took them a long while and until now to cope up with all the losses.

*I'd like to point out this "Some secularists fear that the new regime is empowering the Brotherhood in exchange for help in calming the streets." - If we put it in a different light and perspective and not just our cynical eyes. There is actually good in this matter as to it promotes peace in the once people-filled streets of Egypt. Seriously let's not look at something on a one-sided view but let's view it like a double-edged sword.

I completely agree with the message of this article, which is to address that although Egypt has overthrown its leader, it has not yet completely overthrown its regime. Although Mubarak is no longer ruling in Egypt, it seems as if he had left his shadow to stay. For example, leaders such as the foreign minister and prime minister who both support the previous regime during Mubarak’s leadership have remained in power. It is evident that with these types of leaders, who still strongly believe in Mubarak’s leadership, will slow down the process of a new regime that the people of Egypt will be at peace with. So would it be wise to remove all of those who supported Mubarak and will this cause the wipeout of the old regime entirely? In fact, this revolution in Egypt is just beginning. If the Egyptians want to fully remove the previous regime and all that support it, in my opinion, I think it would be best to overthrow those who still cling onto Mubarak’s form of rule to eliminate the chances of a figure like Mubarak to rise again.

By the looks of it, Mubarak established a very sturdy regime that will be more difficult to get rid of. I also feel as though the people are trying to change their country too rapidly because they saw they were able to overthrow their leader very quickly. Many people want to completely rewrite the constitution (which will probably be a good change for Egypt), but it will be a very difficult task if people from the previous regime still hold power. The Egyptians seem to be testing how far they can push this revolution and how much change they can achieve .

It is no surprise that Egypt is not moving swiftly. Mubarak had been in power for 30 years. No one could have expected four months ago that Egypt would change greatly. With widespread unrest spreading through the Middle East from Tunisia, the revolution seemed almost spontaneous. In comparison, forming a new government will not be as quick. With that said, Egypt could form a stronger relation with the US that would benefit both nations. The new government should seize this opportunity as soon as possible.

To add reasoning behind why Egypt’s new government is not yet established, previous examples can be analyzed. Iraq took about two years to elect its permanent government. Five years later, the government is still struggling to become stable. After the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, it took three months for a new president to be elected. Even after the election, unrest continued which led up to riots last year. Iraq’s and Kyrgyzstan’s situations were different from Egypt’s, but history shows us how long it could take.

With a timeframe considered, what coalition could the United States form with Egypt when the new government stabilizes? It is no doubt that Egypt is the strongest military power on the African continent. This is the main reason why the United States has given so much funding to Egypt’s military. A good amount of Egypt’s power also comes from its strategic location. For example, the Suez Canal is a crucial component to the Middle East. This means that Egypt has a large amount of proximate power. The United States could benefit greatly from having military bases in Egypt, if the future government allows this. Along with proximate power, Egypt also has offensive power. The nation has the 10th largest military in the world, which has been partly supported by the United States.

In comparison, Egypt’s economy could benefit from a stronger alliance with the United States. Fourteen percent of Egyptians live below the poverty line, and the unemployment rate for 2010 was almost ten percent. The United States is also Egypt’s main import and export partner, with imports being about two percent higher than exports. The removal of Mubarak should remove a significant amount of corruption from the economy. With the combination of these factors, both nations could create stronger economies through new trade deals. These absolute gains would help to further instate liberalism in the Middle East.

It is clear that Egypt’s new government should form a bandwagon coalition with the United States when it is ready. The world expects Egypt to form a new government as quickly as it removed the old, but creating a new government is more time intensive than overthrowing one. When Egypt becomes stable again, it should not hesitate to strengthen relations with the United States.