Three days after the first anniversary of his rise to power in Egypt, Mohamed Morsi was unseated by the military. His status as Egypt's first democratically elected president gave him an aura, turning the military's ouster into a mockery of the newborn democracy.
Should democracy be so vulnerable in the Middle East? History has given its answer. Most democracies have gone through a collapse during their fragile transitions. The establishment of a democracy is not an overnight job.
Many Asian countries which are now recognized as democracies have undergone the same universal process of democratization - establishment, collapse, recovery and consolidation.
South Korea, Indonesia and the Philippines were all controlled by military-centered governments for a long time after their independence. Democracy and authoritarian rule in these countries went back and forth for decades, and in the late 1980s, democracy prevailed, dragging them back on track to a more stable democratic system.
Although the quality of democracy varies in these countries, no democratically elected government there has since been overthrown.
What really matters is consolidating a newborn democracy after it stumbles through the transition. These pioneering Asian countries can provide plenty of lessons for latecomers such as Egypt.
First, the military should focus on its role as the force that safeguards national security instead of interfering in politics.
Military intervention was the direct factor leading to the relapse of authoritarian governance in many Asian countries and regions during their democratic process. But after democracy was restored, some officials took off their uniforms and became involved in politics through elections, which has largely promoted the development of democracy.
On the other hand, negative examples can also be found in Asia. Take Thailand, where the long-established democracy is still in the grip of the military's invisible hand. Because of the military's critical role in Thailand's political life, democracy is always under the threat of being undermined, making its democratic system less solid than South Korea and the Philippines.
Second, social order and people's livelihood are vital in strengthening a fledgling democracy. Democracy is a good thing, but it never tops the list of people's required items. Bread and a sense of security always have more appeal.
Morsi's ouster was partly caused by his own inept performance. But in South Korea, the "miracle on the Han River" in the second half of the 20th century produced an economic boom which has managed to guarantee normal social order and the well-being of the people. With such guarantees, democracy becomes a candy to be enjoyed.
Third, tolerance and compromise should play a significant role in a transitional society, and the proper leadership is especially vital.
Democratic transition is a process of redistributing interests and power, which will inevitably benefit some and harm others.
But it should be noted that democracy can only operate when democratically elected leaders are willing to prioritize national interests and respect the needs of minorities.
Meanwhile, opposition parties would resort to a democratic and civilized approach - elections - to reallocate political resources.
The Philippines, South Korea and Indonesia were able to apply these principles in the late 1980s. But in Egypt, uncompromising street politics went from being a motivating power for democracy to a tool used to overthrow a democratically elected leader.
Latecomers to democracy should take advantage of their predecessors' experience. Unfortunately, they will always blindly blaze a doomed trail. Egypt seems to be edging to the cliff edge of democracy, but whether it can be brought back still remains unknown.
The author is an associate research fellow at the Institute of International Relations, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn