Is it some sort of genetic issue or something else with third world politicians who, if ever, get to power, go for a ‘now or never’ stance? Once coming to power, they forget the pressing demands of the electoral that brought them to the presidential and ministerial palaces. Take the case of President Mursi, whose party came to power after years of repression and persecution, meted out by successive military dictators. Egyptians didn't bring him to power to start dividing and polarising the country on religious and sectarian lines, but to address some other pressing issues, such as widespread, and on the rise unemployment, an economy about to collapse, right to free speech and expression of views. What they got in return was a bruised president who blames everyone, save himself, for his persistent failures. ‘Arab Spring’ was not meant to bring ethnologists to power, but the general public to be master of their own destiny. It was completely unwise enforcing religious agenda; attempts to reverse the cultural and social fabric of the society were bound to create ideological fissures; that's exactly what we are now witnessing in Cairo streets. If politicians don't try to ‘eat it hot’ it may not be their last dinner, in a democratic system they may get more chances to take the country along. But as they think it's ‘now or never’, they give chance to forces that they have been fighting all along. Whether it's Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan, who prefers to open controversial non-issues or Mohammed Mursi of Egypt who is already in the soup for dividing the country on ideological lines; they are doing more harm to democracy in their countries. They may inadvertently give pretext to some powerful quarters to come and replace them.MASOOD KHAN, Saudi Arab, June 29.