The Arab Spring, a series of movements that ignited the Middle East at the onset of this decade, quickly became synonymous with the term "revolution."

The West was also quick to pounce on this bandwagon, latching on to the opportunity to promote itself as a supporter of democracy.

But alas, a couple of years on, most of those experts, writers and analysts have started backpedaling on their own arguments presented just a few years ago.

Revolution, in its literal sense, means: a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favor of a "new system." Although the Arab Spring indeed saw a forcible overthrow of various regimes, was the aim of a "new system" achieved? Was a more equitable social order established?

Tunisia was the first casualty of the Arab Spring. A fruit vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi on December 17, 2010 immolated himself to death to protest against injustice. His self-immolation catalyzed movements that spread throughout the country, and forced then Tunisian president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to step down. But did Tunisia achieve change?

The Al-Nahda Movement assumed power through a smooth transition without disturbing the secular constitution, but has widely been criticized for promoting Wahhabism in the country. Its followers have frequently attacked bars and shops for selling alcohol.

Egypt followed suit. Tahrir Square roared with chants of change calling for then president Hosni Mubarak to quit. Mubarak, with the military on his side, initially resisted, but had to succumb to public demands and paved way for the famous elections that saw the Islamic-inclined Muslim Brotherhood rise to power.

The all-powerful Egyptian army allowed democracy to flourish for a short interval, watching events unfold with president Mohamed Morsi making unpopular legislation and decisions.

Such was the public image created for the Brotherhood and Morsi that the same Tahrir crowd, which once cheered for democracy, gathered again calling for the army to intervene and overthrow a democratically elected government. Again, was it a revolution?

Libya to a larger extent was a casualty of collateral damage in the Arab Spring. The "pro-democracy" rebels, magnified by the media and supported by Western forces and Al Qaeda-affiliated militias were successful in quickly disposing of the four-decade long ruling Muammar Gaddafi, along with liberating Tripoli.

Libya is now considered a stronghold of various Islamist militias willing to kill scores to gain authority and influence. The same militias didn't even spare a US diplomat, forgetting the fact that the US was one of the main backers of the rebel movement.

Syria's ethnic conflict was also lumped into the Arab Spring bandwagon. What started as a movement for equal rights and liberties has now, with Western support, turned into a militancy-infested civil war.

Yemen, on the sidelines, has also become one of the strongholds of Al Qaeda, and is providing the grounds for one of the largest US drone operations in the world.

The media, to a greater extent, also holds responsibility for diluting the concept of revolutions - with even minor skirmishes now headlined as revolutions.

Western media outlets are still adamant on calling the Arab Spring a revolution. To make matters worse, this new wave of "revolution" has set a bad precedent.

Whenever a violent protest or a movement against a less popular leader takes place, the media takes no time in tagging it as a popular mass movement and a revolution for democracy and tries its best to create a global pressure, while Western powers anxiously wait on the sidelines to get into the act of chaos.

This precedent, which was recently responsible for wreaking havoc in Ukraine, is slowly and surely taking the prospect of dialogue and negotiations out of the equation.

And with such precedents, one can unfortunately expect further chaos and casualties in times to come - especially in states and leaders unpopular with the global powers.