Tunisia at a Crossroads: Abandoning Democracy Is Not the Solution

Statement by the Revolutionary Socialists

The decisions made by Tunisian President Kais Saied to dismiss the government, freeze parliamentary activities, and impose a curfew have sparked extensive debates and discussions across the region and the world, especially in Egypt, which experienced a coup eight years ago that established a lasting military dictatorship.

One of the most prominent debates regarding Tunisia is about the president’s constitutional authority to make such decisions. Many liberals and leftists in Egypt strip the discussion of politics, power relations, and the crisis in Tunisia, confining it to the constitutional framework—though this debate is essential in itself. They argue that as long as Article 80 of the Tunisian Constitution grants the president the authority to make such decisions, it cannot be considered an attempt to overthrow democracy. Thus, many overlook the political substance of these decisions, which grant the president dictatorial powers and focus on the procedural aspect. Above all, if an article concentrates powers in the president’s hands, how can this article be described as supportive of democratic rights?

Another debate revolves around the role of the military in these measures. Many argue that what happened was not the beginning of a coup because coups usually feature a decisive role for the military, as happened in Egypt in 2013. However, Kais Saied couldn’t make these decisions without the assured support of the military and security apparatus. How could these decisions have been implemented without a force to impose them on the ground? The military was present in the scene, and simultaneously with the president’s decisions, its forces surrounded the parliament building.

The most significant problem with such debates and others is that they are driven by enthusiasm to get rid of the Islamist Ennahda party, not through popular struggle that challenges those in power, including Kais Saied and the class benefiting from the economic policies that Tunisians suffer from, but through eliminating the last remaining democratic gains of the Tunisian revolution. The problem with these debates is that, in their desire to get rid of Islamists in parliament, they have no qualms about returning to absolute power in the hands of the president and closing the door on democracy altogether, assuming that these exceptional measures by Kais Saied will be the last of their kind and that the road will be paved with roses for secular forces afterward!

This idea was also prevalent in Egypt before and after the July 2013 coup, where secular civil forces allowed democracy to be violated through a coup, waiting for a mirage of democracy and enlightenment from the dictator’s pocket! What happened is known to everyone: the regime started with the Muslim Brotherhood as a prelude to unprecedented repression campaigns to clear the field of any notable opposition. This is an experience we hope will not be repeated in Tunisia.

The Tunisian people have suffered dramatically in recent years. Unemployment reached 17.4% in the last quarter of last year, public debt rose to more than 70% of GDP, and the authorities follow an economic policy based on borrowing from the International Monetary Fund and unthinkingly submitting to its conditions, increasing the burden of life on Tunisians. This is not to mention the devastating effects and failure to contain the catastrophic COVID-19 pandemic. The policies of Ennahda, failures, corruption, opportunism, and compromises with the old regime’s men have led to these dire conditions.
However, attempting a coup on democracy is not a solution to these problems; it is a fundamental driver to deepen them if the attack on democratic spaces used to oppose these policies continues. Kais Saied does not adopt a different economic policy at all. That policy was overseen and blessed by state institutions. Now, they present the parliament as a scapegoat for the crisis to direct the people’s anger towards it only, towards elections and democracy as a whole.

It is not yet clear whether Kais Saied, who announced since his election in 2019 that he is not a fan of the party system, will continue his measures and decisions to attack more democratic gains, such as union organizing rights, preventing demonstrations and sit-ins, and freedom of expression and party activity. But the battle is not yet settled, and there are still many spaces that may allow building a radical alternative that surpasses even the influence of Ennahda itself.

However, the positions of the leftist and secular forces in Tunisia have mostly been either supportive or neutral, calling for “adherence to constitutional legitimacy,” as stated in the Tunisian General Labor Union’s statement, without clear and strong opposition, except for the Communist Workers’ Party, which condemned the attempted coup but did not take a practical stance on the ground.

Silence on these measures that overturn democratic gains means paving the way for more blows to the political arena in Tunisia, and it means that in the future, it may be the turn of the media, parties, perhaps even unions, and others. But worse than that is the absence or silence or inaction of the left, which may clear the field for Islamic forces, led by Ennahda, in the democratic battle without presenting a real and tangible alternative that builds a bridge between the struggle to preserve democratic gains and the struggle for economic and social demands that the Tunisian people yearn for.