Eh.. Lets just say I respectfully disagree on some things.. I'm for reforms through the system and only through the system. I don't know about others but when it comes to my own country, I consider those who incite violence in order to achieve some perceived 'reforms' simply traitors. The goal of every responsible citizen should be to contribute to the prosperity of his/her country rather than to deteriorating its stability. The end goal for me is a stable country where people have the right to decent employment opportunities, basic human rights, peace of mind, increased quality of life (proper public services, medical services, etc.) All this can be achieved without lawless insurgency, and it's almost never over in 5-10 years. Once lawlessness is the norm, it's very hard for things to stabilize, and especially if you're talking about Saudi Arabia (Iran would revel in the news that KSA is in turmoil and would immediately start their usual strategy of arming and inciting their locals proxies to kill and kill..) Very messy stuff. Reform takes smart strategy by working within the system and not by destroying the whole system and letting enemies achieve their goals on your land. Besides, there's such a thing as destructive 'democracy', but that's only a personal opinion of mine. Look forward to your response lol..
I don't advocate insurgency or violence against despotic regimes that are unwilling to change at all costs but historically such endeavors were more often than not needed to remove them.
Take Syria as an example. Where opponents of the Al-Assad regime (of all ideologies) supposed to look at his despotic regime's conduct passively all while the regime was killing them and their loved ones? When do you draw the line?
Were/are all peoples of the MENA not in their full right to demonstrate/demand certain universal rights in their own countries at first through peaceful means? I certainly think so.
I consider most of the current regimes in the MENA region to be by large oppressive regimes. Regimes that hinder progressive thinking and development to a very large degree. The sooner most of them either reform or are removed (preferably peacefully as I wrote) the better.
What are the chances of a genuine prospect of real, necessary and profound changes in the MENA in the near future? Peaceful that is? Of course gradually it will occur but how long can we afford to wait? Hell even North Korea has moved forward since for instance 20 years ago although those are tiny baby steps. Insignificant in other words.
What's the point of "saving" a country from a few years of unrest (it's not like our populations are decreasing even during Syria's civil war the population has been increasing if we look past external refugees) when the needed reforms can occur after the end of the unrest (mostly this always happens - take a look at even Iraq of all countries) when the alternative is 50 years of "safe" baby steps? When the reforms are finally completed under this approach that country x or y will be lightyears behind the remaining world.
Totalitarianism, authoritarianism and unbreakable isms are IMO the biggest obstacles to prosperity in the region. They are in my view and many others also the main reason for the increase of fundamentalism. Of course there are many other causes too and it's not just black and white (it hardly ever is) but yes I do believe that non-authoritarian/pluralistic regimes and not autocratic ones are the way forward if you want to see progress at the end of the tunnel. I am by no means a blind follower of regimes.
A big mistake in my view is when people from the region are unwilling to challenge the status quo in any shape or form (I am not talking about violence here) but just conclude that "dictatorship x or y" are at least "my" dictatorship x or y so I have to support them. After all everyone else is doing so. Nah, I don't like that mentality one bit. In fact I despise it and it's a big problem in the Arab world IMO. Of course I am talking about the worst regimes here but in general most of them have traces of such rule.
I don't support the Syrian opposition because I am an Islamist (I am not) but because a possibly free and democratic Syria might force nearby Arab countries to reform. Aside from Al-Assad being a murderous despot that no sane person should support regardless of others being bad or just as bad. You don't have to pick between shitty options you are allowed to refrain from picking one at all. I have chosen to side with the lesser evil in my eyes.
Of course also due to the alternative (continued Pro-Mullah rule). Clearly the so-called "Arab Spring" has been a big failure so far with the exception of Tunisia but that's a discussion for another day.