Tunisia: At a Crossroads?

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.