Did Democracy fail in Tunisia or did Tunisia fail Democracy?

Abstract: Tunisia was among the few nations in the Arab world, post the 2011 uprising, that seemed to adhere to democratic norms and processes. That is until, the incumbent President Kais Saied made some dubious changes to the country’s political institutions. In light of these circumstances, it is important to study Tunisia’s socio-political and economic background which have largely impacted the rise of populism in the nation. These nuances must be taken into account before branding Tunisia a democratic failure as that is a gross oversimplification of the entire situation that happens to be unfolding.

On the 30th of March, 2022, Tunisia’s President Kais Saied announced the dissolution of the country’s Parliament, following a series of moves that appear detrimental to the functioning of this small North-African nation. In early February, Saied replaced the apex judicial body, the Supreme Judicial Council, with his appointees, while bestowing himself the authority to remove judges. He followed this up by establishing a committee to help draft amendments to the 2014 constitution, requesting Tunisians to give their input online but the participation rate has not been up to the mark.

In July of last year, his regime effectively declared a coup, during which the then incumbent Prime Minister Hichem Mechichi was sacked and replaced by Najla Boulden (who now holds the distinction of being the Arab world’s first female PM). Additionally, both the Parliament and the constitution were partially suspended. Several cabinet ministers were fired as Saied declared himself the chief executive of power, while he is normally supposed to be the head of state by constitutional mandate. The Tunisian president controls foreign affairs, defence, and national security, while the prime minister oversees every other domain. But now the Tunisian President happens to be overseeing everything as the country appears to be lapsing into a state of suspended animation.

Saied, a former law professor, has served as the arguably tech-savvy and fastidious President of Tunisia since his term began in 2019. He has defended his actions as “necessary” to save Tunisia and its institutions from years of economic stagnation and political corruption. But can such ideals truly prosper in a State mired in such a turbulent political situation?

Tunisia was seen as the promising (and sole) champion of democracy post the Arab Spring. Its heady start was aided by the Jasmine Revolution of 2010 resulting in the ousting of then-President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. People power, civil unrest and organised protests brought fast, encouraging results; a corrupt and brutal administration was successfully dismantled, sparking similar movements in neighbouring countries that had long suffered from similar governmental oppression. The nation was hailed as the Arab world’s answer to Gdansk, the seat of the historic Solidarity movement which had ignited a similar response decades’ prior and led to the end of Soviet dominance. However, after the revolutionary fervour died down, several of these Arab countries slid back into their original “anti-democratic” tendencies. Tunisia persevered. That is till 2021.

The Democracy Index hailed the nation as a “flawed democracy.” With the current political scenario, surely there is some truth to the matter. The most absurd thing is that Tunisian citizens largely seem unperturbed by the current fiasco. There were demonstrations against Saieds power grab but the overwhelming majority of people seemed to be in support of it. They viewed the decisions as a “welcome change” in face of the endemic corruption and severe economic crisis. After the 2011 protest, there was a massive influx of political rights being lavished upon the populace. But its failure to match up with economic rights meant that financially the country was still weak. Decades of red-tapism, cronyism and corruption meant that the economy was in shambles. To make the situation worse, several anti-corruption policies made the poor worse off. The policies which needed implementation further needed aid and resources, two things the nation lacked. The anti-poverty programs would reap long term benefits but people were already growing impatient and restless as unemployment was on the rise.

Such precarious events are breeding ground for populism and in 2014 a new demagogue government was elected on these grounds. The ‘National Reconciliation Law’ which was passed in 2017, provided amnesty to corrupt businesspersons. This solidified corruption, and reignited political instability and the growth of populism. Saied himself was a by-product of this new emerging trend in Tunisian political rhetoric. The nation’s disillusionment with its policymakers is only natural. The mismanagement of the Covid-19 pandemic only strengthened their support of President Saied’s economic and political crackdowns, which were seen as a prerequisite to getting the country back on track. The country was seen to be in need of strong leadership, which the Saied regime promised. It was of little concern to them that political dissidents and opponents were being abused or that human rights were languishing under the ire of their new head of government.

Thus, now the question arises, is Tunisia a failed democracy or can we judge the nation on democratic ideals perpetuated by the west alone, abandoning a more succinct study into its unique and complicated socio-political and economic needs? After all, barring 20 nations, all majorly North-European, the rest of the world seems to be falling under the “flawed democracy, hybrid regimes or authoritarian” scale. These studies have been repeatedly criticised, for, despite the appearance of scientific objectivity, the whole act of ranking a country based on its democratic credentials is as riddled with biases, value judgments and hidden agendas as is prevalent in most data collection. One does not need to launch an investigation to decipher what is construable. Additionally, the unclear criterion and ground rules only complicate the credibility of such an index.

Democracy is not a “one size fits all” concept as any eager defender of liberal ethos would like to ideally believe. Theoretically, its postulates appear similar but in practice, its application differs greatly and is subject to a country’s socio-political realities. At face value, the rankings may look to demarcate the so-called spearheads of democracy from the black sheep, misfits and outright autocrats, but on a deeper level, it shows a persistent failure to take into account and contextualise a nation’s administration and nature of governance. Western notions of liberalism, rule of law, and rights cannot be conflated with the preferences of countries that have their own historical and cultural sensibilities and nuances to take into account.

The Tunisian experiment shows that merely holding pluralist elections, bringing forth a written constitution, and political rights alone, do not guarantee a successful democratic transition. When these new institutions fail to bring about any accountable government, let alone any progressive reform, in a country that already has a complicated political background, the result may appear anti-democratic in the long haul but is a mere outburst of disenchantment against the failed promises of the very system.

Ayanika Das
Intern, Asia in Global Affairs