TOPSHOT – Supporters of the Shiite Huthi movement wave their national flag and banners reading in Arabic: ‘our revolution continues’ as they shout slogans during a rally commemorating the fifth anniversary of the 2011 Arab Spring uprising that toppled the then-president Ali Abdullah Saleh, on February 11, 2016 in the capital Sanaa. / AFP / MOHAMMED HUWAIS

As Americans, we are justifiably proud of our democratic system, even as it occasionally flails and fails. The opportunity for each adult citizen to make their voice heard in their government through the vote has a lot going for it morally. Despite a public commitment to spreading democracy around the world, the history of the United States seems dotted with more instances of supporting murderous and kleptocratic regimes than not (exceptions include liberating Western Europe from Nazi aggression in WWII).

Sadly, one of the times when the United States has tried to act more in accordance with its public commitment to democracy is during the Arab Spring, which seems to have been kind of a disaster in terms of the human toll and what it has achieved. On May 19, 2011, a few months after Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi marked the start of Arab Spring by setting himself on fire to protest corruption, Obama said:

“We have the chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator.  There must be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity.  Yes, there will be perils that accompany this moment of promise.  But after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.”

Concluding with:

“It will not be easy.  There’s no straight line to progress, and hardship always accompanies a season of hope.  But the United States of America was founded on the belief that people should govern themselves.  And now we cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just.”

Five years later, not only are dictators back in power in all of these countries, but large swathes of Egypt, Libya and Syria are without a functioning state, leading to continued violence and chaos as factions vie for power, spelling misery for their residents and creating havens for terrorists. Tunisia is the notable exception, appearing to have transitioned mostly peacefully to a new democratic regime through peaceful and fair elections.

What went wrong? Perhaps it was an over-eager effort by the Obama administration to finally say that the US will end its history of covertly supporting dictators who are terrible to their own people but side with US interests. But in our eagerness, we may not have made a realistic assessment of what it would take to transition these countries to democracy and underestimated the cost and risk of them becoming a failed state.

This doesn’t mean that America should strive any less to help other countries transition to democracy but it does mean we need to help countries develop the prerequisites to a functioning democratic system (for example, a developed middle class, literacy, rule of law) and looking for realistic intermediate solutions. When a terrible dictator seems vulnerable to regime change, America needs to take a realistic view of whether that country is ready for democracy before we decide where to throw our influence. Sometimes – dare I say it – the better decision may be to support another dictator who can keep the country from falling into chaos but also appears to be more benevolent than his predecessor, who can commit the country and himself to moving towards democracy in the near future, and who seems personally committed to not relying on repression, violence, and kleptomania. This is not easy – a leader who can keep a chaotic country together may act towards his opponents in a way that some may view as repressive. Where is the balance? A leader who is laying the groundwork for an educated populace and more prosperous future economy may also be stealing from the country – at what point should the US act in a way that supports other viable leaders?

In the back of my mind, I have figures like Park Kyung Hee (South Korean president in the 1970s) and Lee Kwan Yew (PM of Singapore from 1959 to 1990), who were hugely controversial leaders for their repressive actions as leaders but whom many would say laid the groundwork for a prosperous populace that ultimately supported a transition to fuller democracy. Paul Kagame in Rwanda may ultimately be looked upon this way by history, but only time will tell as sadly he pushed forward a referendum that would allow him to stay in office potentially until 2034.

There will be also times when a brutal but somewhat forward-looking benevolent leader is not even an option (because no such person exists). Then what path should the US support? These might not be types of messy questions that Americans want to embrace, but perhaps as the last six years of the Arab Spring has shown, idealism without pragmatism can be hugely costly.