Yes, and the difference is that the Tunisian Government did step down but after two years and the Egyptian government was overthrown by a mililtary coup less than a year when they took office. This timeline makes your argument redundant already. With other words, Egypt could have gone towards similar path that Tunisia went.
This is exactly what I mean by saying you're very uninformed about the situation...
Egyptians' problems with Mursi and protests against his policies started in July 2012 and gradually increased until the situation became really serious and a stand-off ensued in November 2012. The army take-over did not happen until July 2013, exactly 51 weeks after the 1st protests against him. In other words, in one year (less a week) Mursi did not make any serious attempts to reach out to the opposition to see what their grievances were, let alone heed to their calls!
In contrast, Tunisia's Enhada party reached back to the opposition
on the very 1st day of protests against it (in February 2013) by announcing that the government would be dissolved and a new all encompassing national government would be formed. Although the Egyptians would have been happy with a similar announcement from Mursi even months after the protests started, the Tunisians actually rejected the idea and a stand-off ensued in July 2013 when protesters called for the government's resignation. It took just two months less a day for the Enhada party to heed the calls of the protesters and agree to resign pending mediation by Tunisia's main and powerful labour union (who was on the side of the opposition).
Now, I can explain this to you another 10 times, but when you don't understand that simple and basic difference and keep repeating the same comment that Mursi "could have gone towards similar path", what do you expect to hear? Yes, he could have and should have, but he didn't - not on the same day, not two months later and not even a year later. And it would be absolutely ridiculous to extrapolate that and conclude that he would have done 3 days, weeks, months, years or decades later!
Yes thank you for pointing out to this lack of understanding of cause and effect thing. Keep in mind, that this cause and effect argument can be dragged into many areas and different episodes in history. so lets not even go there.
Yes, please do drag the argument "into many areas and different episodes in history". In fact, I have already asked you a dozen times to do so - to show me a single episode where an uprising was brought upon (caused) by autocratic tendencies of a leader and he/she suddenly became a proponent of democracy! 30 Pages and multiple requests later, I'm still waiting!
Also, keep in mind the Egyptian army has been in power for a ling time and and they have also had their share in ruining the economy, which can be another cause and effect argument
First of all, that argument is FULL of fallacies. Secondly, even if it was true, what does that have to do with anything?!
That is not my fariy tail concept.And if the masses were not interested in democracy they would have not started this revolution in the first place. So, speak not based on your own traumatizing experience.
I didn't say, or even imply, that the masses are not interested in democracy - I said they're not interested in your fairy tale "democratization process" (or frankly even understand what that means). If you don't understand the difference, we have bigger issues than I thought. Although, economics (low standard of living combined with a high perception of corruption) was the main driving force behind all of the Arab Spring uprisings, people did want democracy, but no one and I mean no one in the whole history of mankind has been interested in a 30 year democratization process. That's the whole point of an uprising and people risking their lives, otherwise they would have taken their sweet time and negotiated a "democratization process" with Ben Ali or Mubarak or Assad that would have taken 3 decades to implement!!!