Suddenly, there is a whiff of 1989 in the air. The Middle East, one of the last regions in the world to cling to repressive government by corrupt and self-perpetuating elites, has been touched by democracy. One by one, regimes that seemed as entrenched as they were unresponsive have accepted demands for greater democracy and accountability — demands that only a few months ago would have brought persecution, arrest and even torture to those voicing such sedition. As with the collapse of communism, the challenge to authoritarian Arab governments has appeared suddenly, has emboldened once cowed protesters and has been largely inspired from outside.

Two things, in particular, have fuelled the protests that in Lebanon have led to the unexpected resignation of the pro-Syrian Prime Minister and the noisy demand by Lebanese of almost all factions for the 14,000 Syrian troops to quit. The first was the murder two weeks ago of Rafik Hariri, the Prime Minister for most of the past 12 years who rescued his country from collapse after its long civil war. The second was the election in Iraq.

Lebanese resentment of an occupying force that has become notorious for its involvement in smuggling, racketeering and intimidation has been growing for years. The Syrians, welcomed in 1989 as enforcers of the Taif accord to end Lebanon’s 14-year civil war, have outstayed their welcome. Last year the United Nations called for their withdrawal from Lebanon, in a Security Council resolution cynically ignored by Damascus and much of the West. Most Lebanese continued, however, to be tyrannised by Syria. Damascus had no compunction in pressing for a constitutional amendment to allow a second term for the pro-Syrian President. And Syria has held an iron veto over any attempt by Lebanon to make peace with Israel.

Well-founded suspicions that one of Syria’s many competing intelligence agencies instigated the Hariri murder has focused resentment. But what brought thousands out on to the streets was the example of Iraq. Many Lebanese realised that all the denunciations of US attempts to bolster democracy were as self-serving as they were wrong. Iraqis understood the value of democracy; many of them seized the chance when it came. And it is not only Iraqis who have heard the message. President Bush made thinly veiled criticisms of two key American regional allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, in his State of the Union address; within weeks, the Saudis had held the first free municipal elections in their history and President Mubarak announced that this year’s presidential election would be by popular ballot.

President Assad of Syria, who has so far proved vacillating and ineffective in domestic policy, is flying to Saudi Arabia in an obvious attempt to present any withdrawal from Lebanon as part of a pan-Arab strategy. He will have to move fast. Lebanese protesters have been emboldened, Syrian criminal interests are threatened and the divided regime in Damascus fears the political consequences of a disorganised return by resentful troops. He would be wise to support a Lebanese referendum on whether Syria’s forces should stay or go. A clear decision now would be better than leaving next month’s parliamentary elections to turn, as would otherwise happen, into a plebiscite on the Syrian occupation. Mr Assad has little time to avoid the avalanche before he is engulfed.