A good example is the Arab Spring. When Tunisia, Cairo and Tripoli marched on the streets and demanded democracy and self-rule, most only yearned for a voice and wanted to be heard.

For a wide multiparty representation to happen, Middle East commentators and political observers knew the transition from decades of autocratic rule to a democratic régime was going to take time. However, that was not what the Facebook and Twitter generation wanted – they wanted change and wanted it now!

As someone who lived in and has firsthand knowledge of the region, I know that whenever the area talks about democracy, only one party stands out – the Muslim Brotherhood. Not for any reason other than being the oldest, most organised and best financed. And since Islam is the dominant religion in the region, there is a sense of automatic approval by many, that “Muslim Brothers” cannot be “Bad Brothers”……. That’s why there is a blind acceptance by most and a reluctant accession by the secular and moderates.

For instance, take Sudan’s Bashir; he was helped into power in 1989 by the Muslim Brotherhood of Sudan! Now the same group is maneuvering to oust him for a less provocative leader. After the recent geographical split of the country into South Sudan and Sudan, the almost 100% Muslim nation of Sudan is now enjoying an influx of financial support by way of trade and investment from the Gulf States. The same is starting to happen in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. It’s the way things are in the region today, with the West openly and unconditionally supporting Israel, this is the way Muslims feels they need to protect themselves.

There are two types of Islamic rule today; the one practiced in Iran and its stricter version in Saudi Arabia or that practiced in Turkey and until recently in Egypt, Tunisia and even Libya, where religion and the state exist side by side, cooperate but remain separate.

The burning question is – can the West affect which Islamic rule the new Middle East will adopt?

As someone who grew up in an autocracy, before Facebook and Twitter, I know too well that paralyzing yearn for having a voice and living in a democracy and a republic where all is equal and fair. However, I also saw firsthand what harried democracy brings to the surface. Like most rushed projects, only parties that have been prepared for a while – usually illegally and underground – can work under pressure to deliver a coherent campaign in a few month. Most Arab nations (including those with the word Democratic next to their name) have some sort of ban of political parties and activities except for the ruling party.

North Africa and the Middle East are mostly Islamic nations, some are more secular than others but they are mostly, especially North Africa, moderate with little or no Sharia Law enforced. But still the only politically and financially organised group is the Muslim Brotherhood and because of that in the case of any hurried election, they will be the most ready and best prepared.

We saw it a few weeks ago in Egypt when a religious conflict triggered mass killing. Up until the Arab Spring Egyptians were a nation where Muslims and Christians lived, worked and worshiped hormonally side by side. Then again in Libya, the first announcement the NTC made after Gaddafi’s death was the return to Sharia and Islamic laws. And now in Tunisia, one of the most secular Arab nations elects on a 90% turnout with an overwhelming majority, the Islamist Ennahda party – a group outlawed during President Ben Ali’s rule on the grounds that it was planning an Islamist takeover of the country!

Three consecutive upraises and three successive Islamic takeovers, signaling the possibility of the full implementation of Sharia Law, a way of life that is completely opposite to Western style democracy and more in line with what is now practiced in Saudi Arabia and Iran. I ask again, should we in the West be concerned?