History is right
now being made in Tunisia: a new constitutional framework appears close to being
approved by the National Constituent Assembly. If the final articles are
approved, this will be the first successfully negotiated constitution in a
post-Arab Spring country. This is no doubt an important development because for
a long time, instead of “middle of the road” cooperation between moderate
Islamists and political secularists, actors from across the political spectrum
appeared unable to reach a common framework for politics. After two “moderate”
Islamist parties democratically ascended to power in post-revolution Tunisia
and Egypt (Ennahda and the Muslim Brotherhood respectively), democratic
secularists grew increasingly suspicious of a creeping “Islamization” of
politics, fearing that the secular authoritarianism they struggled to get rid
of was slowly being replaced by oppressive Islamism. In Egypt, all signs point
to a military-led reversal to the secular authoritarian security state of old,
while Tunisia – as it seems – is moving toward a brighter future.
However, there
is reason to be very cautious before declaring Tunisia a democratic success
story, because while political leaders have finally been able to compromise and
produce a new constitutional framework within which to conduct politics, 2013
saw some of the worst political violence in Tunisia since the revolution,
including the assassinations of two secular activists and widespread unrest in
the streets. A stagnant economy, high unemployment (as high as 35 percent among youths), and a conservative Islamist base may mean that Ennahda’s leadership,
which has finally had to live up to its moderate rhetoric, will pay the price
for what many observers has perceived as ‘doublespeak’ – speaking one language
in front of a secular (and international) audience, and another when speaking
to a conservative audience.
This is not an
unusual practice among politicians – Republicans and Democrats in the United
States tend to do the same thing (Mitt Romney’s etch-a-sketch reset of 2012
comes to mind). This can become a serious problem when the different audiences
diverge fundamentally on crucial questions such as, for instance, what should
be the source of legal authority in the land – God (as interpreted by religious
authorities) or a secular independent judiciary?
Moderate
Islamist parties, such as Tunisia’s Ennahda, have to communicate with their more conservative base within a certain
discursive framework, while trying to operate within another discursive
framework when confronted with a different audience. In a democracy you are
supposed to have diverging views and dissenting voices. But for a functioning
democracy, you have to agree on the parameters
for politics, the very framework within which all actors will meet in
discourse. The real test for Tunisia’s future isn’t whether the new constitution
passes, but whether the framework it establishes will be accepted and respected
by all political actors. Unless it can function as a common discursive
framework within which political contention can be resolved through
institutional mechanisms, a state of politics will prevail where actors resort
to extra-institutional, and often violent, means.
