In the aftermath of the Tunisian legislative elections, President Kaïs Saïed came to light: solitary, stubborn and nevertheless irresolute and weak-willed.
In the aftermath of elections of January 29, the holder of the new Tunisian power, President Kaïs Saïed, did not fail to reveal himself in broad daylight: solitary, obstinate and nevertheless irresolute and weak-willed. Is it therefore isolated and condemned because of the low turnout (11,4% of the vote, or 895.002 voters out of 7.853.447 voters)?
Nothing is less certain, insofar as the mass of voters is neither identical nor similar to that of real and potential support for the Head of State. This support is measured by the yardstick of the capital of popular confidence, certainly worn out but still effective, as well as the weakness of competitors within a divided political opposition.
The massive abstention – not to be confused with the boycott which is in the minority – of nearly 89% of the electorate, i.e. around 9 out of 10 Tunisians – is explained, according to the President of the Republic, by the rejection of the parliamentary institution following the unfortunate experience of the previous Assembly – frozen then dissolved at the end of the "coup de force" July 25, 2021.
Such an on-the-spot interpretation, without prior reflection and without in-depth study, is characteristic of populism. This reduces, by a simple or even simplistic logic, the complexity of the situation to a single factor derived from common sense. However, the massive abstention during the legislative elections organized in two rounds (December 17, 2022 and January 29, 2023) denotes a refusal of official policy.
It is also explained by citizen fatigue resulting from an excessive number of electoral consultations while the economic and social crisis generating a deterioration in purchasing power and a shortage of basic necessities is the major concern of Tunisians.
“A power without power”
The President does not care about all this and never mentions them, except to make them responsible for the dark monopolistic forces, thus reconnecting with conspiracy theory, the other ideological ingredient of populism.
Contrary to the image broadcast by international media, the new Tunisian power is not dictatorial**. This, despite the customization and the absence of consultation with the intermediary bodies.
One of its paradoxes is precisely to be “a power without power” and without authority. Whole sections of the economy, society and culture completely escape it. Moreover, political rhetoric replaces public action. The President speaks and accuses without acting and without shaping the course of history. Hence the indecisive nature of power without a hold on the present and everyday life. Suddenly, the citizens are demoralized by the absence of a solution to the unprecedented crisis that the country is going through.
It is true that this crisis is essentially the result of chaotic governance over the past decade. We also see that the President, who has concentrated all the powers in his hands without surrounding himself with competent advisers and without engaging in an inclusive dialogue, is responsible for the current slump.
This situation is all the more regrettable since, in the aftermath of the historic turning point of July 25, 2021, supported by the overwhelming majority of Tunisians, the chance presented itself to build a political consensus and strengthen power by opening up to political forces. and civil society organizations. None of this was done because President Saïed wants to be a "clean man", "without ambition for power" and without a communication strategy. He preferred to go it alone, driven as he is by the messianic doctrine that all politicians are corrupt and must therefore be removed from the scene.
A lonely president
This Puritan conception is the cause of his isolation since in his so-called war against the "imaginary enemy", he gradually lost the support of most of those who closely supported him, without being able to ward off his adversaries. In this sense, it is not very political because it ignores the logic of alliances and mobilizations of “friends”. For him, the “enemy” is everywhere and this pathological obsession risks isolating him forever from political and civil society.
As a result, identification with Habib Bourguiba and General Charles de Gaulle seems not only anachronistic but caricatural. Just for example, Bourguiba has always surrounded himself with imposing men whom he knew how to choose from among the best while forging alliances to build his “stage policy”. He resorted to communication without frills or demagoguery, in order to act effectively on reality and modernize society from top to bottom.
On the other hand, the current refusal to dialogue with General Union of Tunisian Workers (UGTT), at a time when the country risks economic bankruptcy, seems foolish and irresponsible insofar as it risks leading to a losing war. The Trade Union Centre, pivot of civil society, despite its limits, remains active as a force for collective mobilization and balance with the power in place.
In truth, it is the entire official political process that has been underway for 18 months that errs on the side of overconfidence and personalization, without taking into account the separation of powers.
The new policy is not favorable to the continuity of the democratic transition. As proof, the national consultation which collected only half a million votes, the personal elaboration of a Constitution whose initial text designed by renowned colleagues – the Dean Sadok Belaid and Professor Amin Mahfoudh –, was abandoned in favor of a version written haphazardly. Added to this is the choice of a single-member voting system, exclusive of political parties and parity between men and women, not to mention liberticidal texts such as the decree-law 54-2022.
A sterile political choice
The initial choice to engage the country in a financially costly constitutional and electoral process to the detriment of political reform backed by economic and social foundations turned out to be absurd, sterile and without perspective.
As for the ideal of a participative and local democracy, it is quite simply a utopia which does not correspond to any demand of society in search of the requirements of work, freedom and dignity.
To carry out this triple task, it was important to implement decentralized public policies in order to attract investment and gradually reduce the unemployment rate (15,3%) and social and regional inequalities. A climate of confidence and not of mistrust, as is currently the case with employers and workers, was essential for all the actors.
In the absence of a Realpolitik both internally and externally, Tunisia has been regressing for more than a decade. It is sinking further under the weight of bureaucracy, corruption and mediocracy imposed by islamism et populism, these two great “amateurs” of politics.
In the end, the catastrophic scenario for Tunisia would be a confrontation between political power and union power, the leaders of which have been watching each other like faience dogs for months. The two camps do not yet dare to cross the threshold of the irreparable in a context of global crisis including the erosion of electoral and political legitimacy.
mohamed kerrou, Professor of Political Science, University of Tunis El Manar
This article is republished from The Conversation under Creative Commons license. Read theoriginal article.