The only solution to Tunisia’s political crisis is a roadmap for getting back to inclusive politics and a renewed social contract.

This piece was originally published on the USIP website https://www.usip.org/

Long heralded as the sole success story of the Arab uprisings, Tunisia was thrown into political tumult on July 25 when President Kais Saied dismissed the prime minister, suspended parliament and removed politicians’ immunity from criminal prosecution. The decision followed days of protest and long-term malaise, with Tunisians angered over the government’s COVID response, endemic corruption, a lagging economy and, more broadly, the inability of the post-Ben Ali political system — particularly political parties — to deliver for citizens. While many Tunisians supported Saied’s move, they and the international community await what comes next and how it will impact the North African country’s long-term political and economic trajectory.

USIP’s Elie Abouaoun and Leo Siebert look at what led Saied to take this dramatic move, why many Tunisians support it, what comes next and how the international community can help. 

Why did President Saied decide to take such an extraordinary move? 

Siebert: There are multiple reasons, with both immediate and longer-term objectives behind Saied’s invocation of article 80 of the constitution, which gives the president exceptional powers “in the event of imminent danger.” The spark for the decision was a political conflict and crisis of governance that was spiraling out of control amid the country’s most catastrophic COVID-19 wave. In July, the public hospital system was failing, with preventable deaths on the rise as hospitals ran out of oxygen, and in some cases, even lost electricity. This comes against a backdrop of already steadily declining public services and a stagnant and fragmented government perceived by the public as unable or unwilling to manage the myriad crises at its door. Public demonstrations demanding accountable and responsive governance have been met by numerous instances of excessive police violence against demonstrators, harassment of civil society and journalists, as well as prosecutions of government criticism on social media.    

With the state and society increasingly at odds, the state itself was also experiencing an alarming level of dysfunction at a critical period. A primary cause of the dysfunction was a political conflict between Saied and Speaker of Parliament Rachid Ghannouchi in which neither was willing or able to negotiate a path forward, resulting in a stalemate with both sides spending their energy on political maneuvering. Meanwhile economic, social and health conditions continued to deteriorate.

Dismissing the government and freezing parliament, while deeply controversial, effectively ended the stalemate, at least for the time being. It also strengthens Saied’s bargaining position ahead of what will be contentious debates around how to correct the country’s trajectory. The president has been clear that by invoking article 80, he also intends to reform the political system, citing the endemic corruption, continued impunity and the inability of the current system to deliver the reforms, accountability and justice Tunisians need and deserve. Critics of the president’s decision argue that change via one-man rule, even temporarily, is not the solution and only exacerbates the problem’s the president has cited as justification for his decision.

It’s also important to remember that Saied was elected without a political party and has made his distaste for Tunisia’s political parties clear. Given this fact and the popular belief that leading parties have to-date failed to act in the interest of the public good, we should not be surprised to see forthcoming proposals from the president that diminish the primacy of parties in addressing the many challenges facing the country. On numerous occasions the president has advocated for a presidential system with stronger, democratically elected local and regional councils. Many believe he will pursue this model. But even this remains unclear.  Another possibility in the short term that may be easier to negotiate is amendments to the electoral law that could limit the chances of deeply fragmented parliaments incapable of forming stable ruling coalitions.  

Many Tunisians have expressed support for Saied’s decision. What does this reveal about citizens’ views on the country’s political system?

Siebert: It is important to understand that public support for the suspension of the current political system is not a referendum on democracy. It is a referendum on the performance of those elected since 2011, the system created by the 2014 constitution and the resulting transactional consensus between the main political parties. Citizens who fought hard and sacrificed greatly to dislodge the oppressive one-party system of the old regime expected their democratically elected leaders to improve living conditions and enable transitional justice, responsive governance and accountability. However, the current system has not led to prosperity nor consolidated democracy, which Tunisians so badly desire.  

The ills of the old regime remain and the underlying conditions that led to the 2011 uprising have not been addressed. While access to the spoils of power can now be won through credible electoral processes, citizens continue to suffer skyrocketing inflation, declining public services and systemic marginalization as politicians, business elites and security forces continue to act with impunity.  

Some in civil society point to the current predicament as evidence that their attempts to hold leaders to account via the ballot box have not worked, citing this as further evidence of the need for reforms. 

While those who helped build the current system are rightly sounding the alarm that Tunisia risks authoritarian drift, it appears that a majority are willing to give the president some leeway and continue to watch carefully and cautiously, ready to stand in unity against him should he prove to be a threat to the country’s hard-won freedoms. 

What comes next? How can this crisis be resolved?

Abouaoun: The president has yet to appoint a new prime minister as he promised when invoking article 80. And there are no updates on his plan for a roadmap toward restoring inclusive politics. The longer he waits, the more impatient the public, civil society and political parties will become, further testing the legitimacy of his actions and threatening the country’s tenuous stability.

The outcome of the recent shake-up will only yield positive results if it is complemented by a political roadmap that can bring the country back to the realm of inclusive politics. The grievances against mainstream political parties are irrefutable, but their role is still essential to a sound democracy. Therefore, the key question is what systemic reforms are needed to enable and incentivize responsive governance and prevent the recurrence of previous failures.  

Despite the significant gains made by Tunisians since 2011, political and social exclusion continued to fuel public grievances. Polling regularly confirms a majority of Tunisians believe their living conditions have deteriorated since 2011 and that political parties have not managed well the economic and social aspects of the transition. While this is not inaccurate, it is worth highlighting that the structural economic and social reforms needed in Tunisia require more than just a functioning government. Tunisia’s crisis is primarily driven by a lack of popular legitimacy of the current governing structures. Without a renewed social contract and a large constituency for these painful reforms, no government will be able to make the right decisions.

Is there a role for the United States and the international community?

Abouaoun: There is certainly a role for the international community, including the United States. As the security landscape in the Middle East and North Africa is changing with a multitude of regional actors playing a larger role than before, and not necessarily to the benefit of local citizens, Tunisia needs to be shielded from regional conflicts and power struggles. The United States, the Europe Union and other countries should caution regional players against using Tunisia to settle their own differences. 

Beyond providing bilateral financial and technical assistance — which are important and necessary —Tunisia’s political transition continues to require constant international support and encouragement to all political forces to remain vigilant about the importance of inclusive politics and the disastrous consequences of resorting to violence. Tunisian political forces should realize that, after all, establishing legitimate governance structures is the cornerstone of stability and prosperity. Such a process requires a constructive role for politicians, corporations, unions, civil society and other stakeholders and will certainly benefit from international support, be it technical, financial or political.

Elie Abouaoun told The Arab Weekly: “When elections are rushed in a sharply divided society going through a conflict, the outcome is usually further deterioration and civil wars”.

This piece was originally thearabweekly on the atfl website https://thearabweekly.com/

WASHINGTON-

President Joe Biden on Thursday opened the first White House Summit for Democracy by sounding an alarm about what he sees as a global slide for democratic institutions and called for world leaders to “lock arms” and demonstrate democracies can deliver.

In the Middle East, the summit sparked questions about whether it matters for a region that has not managed to embark on successful democratic transitions and just how the US intends to adjust its democracy promotion to MENA’s realities.

Biden called the virtual meeting a critical moment for fellow leaders to redouble efforts on bolstering democracies. In making the case for action, he noted his own battle to win the passage of voting rights legislation at home and alluded to the United States’ own challenges to its democratic institutions and traditions.

“This is an urgent matter,” Biden said in remarks to open the two-day virtual summit. “The data we’re seeing is largely pointing in the wrong direction.”

“Make no mistake, we’re at a moment of democratic reckoning,” said Uzra Zeya, the Under Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights. “Countries in virtually every region of the world have experienced degrees of democratic backsliding.”

The summit featured opening remarks from Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, with representatives from some 100 governments, as well as NGOs, private businesses, philanthropical organisations and legislatures attending.

The gathering already has drawn a backlash from the United States’ chief adversaries and other nations that were not invited to participate.

There are concerns in Washington that democratic practices are fraying while the tide of authoritarianism is rising.

A Pew Research Centre report released this week said that while “people like democracy, their commitment to it is often not very strong.” Even wealthy countries, including the US, have some people who favour military rule, the report said.

Another group, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, said in its annual report that the number of countries experiencing democratic backsliding “has never been as high” as the past decade, with the US added to the list alongside India and Brazil.

US officials promise a year of action will follow the two-day conference but preparations have been overshadowed by questions over some invitees’ democratic credentials and complaints from uninvited countries.

White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre said Biden will call on participants to dedicate themselves to “reversing the democratic recession and ensuring that democracies deliver for their people.”

Biden has made promoting democratic values a focal point of his foreign policy and has repeatedly stressed the need for the US and other like-minded allies to demonstrate that democracies are a better vehicle for societies than autocracies.

— Guest list —

The White House declined to say how it went about deciding who was invited and who was left off the list.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the invitation list was not meant to be a “stamp of approval or disapproval.”

“It’s just meant to have a diverse range of voices and faces and representatives at the discussion,” she said.

In the Middle East, Turkey, a fellow NATO member and Egypt and Jordan, key US allies in the region, were left out. Israel and Iraq were the only MENA countries to be invited.

Tunisia, long perceived by the US and other Western nations as embodying hopes for successful democratic transitions in the Arab world, has not been invited either, with no explanations offered by Washington or Tunis. US concerns about the future of the Tunisian transition were reflected by a US House of representatives hearing held last October.

President Kais Saied has said, however, that the “state of exception” he installed in Tunisia since July 25 aims to save the Tunisian political system from corrupt practices.

An invitation list published last month included countries whose leaders are accused by human rights groups of harbouring authoritarian tendencies, such as the Philippines, Poland and Brazil.

It also included Taiwan, stoking anger from China, which considers the democratically-governed island part of its territory.

The guest list raises the question of the often unconvincing categorisation of countries of the world as democratic or not. There have been questions about governments and non-government organisations making that determination.

“There are multiple frameworks, indicators and attributes used to assess the extent to which a government is democratic or not. There are also multiple institutions doing these classifications. Some of these institutions are less independent than others, in some cases pushing for a partisan or partial political agenda. Therefore, the real value of these classifications lies more in what kind of patterns they reveal rather than taking them to the word, ” Elie Abouaoun, director of the MENA programme at the US Institute Peace, told The Arab Weekly.

Some in the Arab world reject Western categorisations as artificial or trying to impose democracy models with no connection to the region. “I would not put all the West in one basket. In my work, I have seen very rigid conceptual frameworks adopted by some Western organisations and pushed into some countries. But I have also seen several organisations and initiatives showing a great deal of understanding of the local dynamics, contexts, and nuances,”  says Abouaoun.

— Risks and pitfalls —

With the examples of Libya and Iraq in mind, regional analysts caution against the exclusive focus on electoral norms in MENA countries plagued by serious crises or internal divisions, as a yardstick to measure the success of democratic transitions.

“Taking several examples from the region, I see a clear tendency by the international community (or most of its members) to focus on the technical aspects of democratic transition such as holding elections and expediting the process of adopting a constitution, ” admits Abou Aoun. “When elections are rushed in a sharply divided society going through a conflict, the outcome is usually further deterioration and civil wars,” he adds.

Former Tunisian minister of foreign affairs Khemaies Jhinaoui believes “local populations should take ownership of the democratic process” and not see it as influenced by the outside.

Western democratic advocacy faces the additional challenge of being perceived by the Arab public as a form of foreign interference.  “It is clear by now that mainstreaming democratic practices in any given country must start with local buy-in. Short of this, the whole endeavour becomes an imposed agenda by foreign powers, ” noted Abouaoun.

Despite US professions of faith in the democratic ideal, experts say. Washington’s ambitions in the region seem to have taken a back seat in view of more urgent tasks, such as thwarting Iran’s nuclear threat and worrying about the resurgence of the Islamic State (ISIS).

White House coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa, Brett McGurk, bemoaned “hard lessons learnt” from previous policies including pursuits of democracy in the region. He pointed out that the current administration is now focused on “the basics of building, maintaining and strengthening our partnerships and alliances here.”

–US credibility–

The US also faces the challenge of enhancing its own credibility as a democratic leader. The nation, which has long postured as a shining example of democratic rule, is itself seen as a backslider.

Local elected officials in America are resigning at an alarming rate amid confrontations with angry voices at school board meetings, elections offices and town halls. States are passing laws to limit access to the ballot, making it more difficult for Americans to vote. And the January 6 attack at the Capitol has left many in one US political party clinging to Donald Trump’s false claims of a stolen election, eroding trust in the accuracy of the vote.

“The United States has a thriving democracy, but it’s been hurting in recent years,” said Michael Abramowitz, the president of Freedom House, whose annual report marked a 15th consecutive year of a global democratic slide. “Right now, we’re going through a phase in America where it’s very difficult to get things done and to really prove that democracy can deliver.”