Two cheers for Tunisia, as a messy post-Spring success

Ennahda’s relinquishing of power means victory for democracy in the country, writes Alan Philps

On Wednesday, the Islamist-led government of Tunisia resigned and handed power to a technocratic government entrusted with holding new elections. So what? Sounds like quite a normal and reasonable process. Actually, given the background of Arab turmoil from Libya to Iraq, this simple act is nothing less than revolutionary.

It overturns the often-held view that Islamist political parties would take advantage of the ballot box to seize power, then reveal their true colours as anti-democratic and never face the electorate again.

This idea was summed up by Edward Djerejian, former US assistant secretary of state, as “one man, one vote, one time”. It served to justify the Algerian army’s decision to cancel the 1991 elections when it appeared that the Islamic Salvation Front might win. The army took over, and crushed the Islamists in the course of a long, bloody civil war.

Mr Djerejian’s theory has taken a knock. Surprisingly, this development has received scant coverage in the non-Arab media, where the dominant narrative is the failure of the Arab revolutions to engender a viable democracy. In Syria, popular protest led to a ruthless crackdown and civil war that is infecting Lebanon and Iraq. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood’s tenure in power has been cut short by the army, apparently with broad support from a population exhausted by insecurity and incompetent government.

Tunisia, where the protests began with the self-immolation of a vegetable seller three years ago, is the little country that could. The question remains: is Tunisia an example to follow, or an outlier with a unique history?

With a population below 11 million, Tunisia has the advantage of being a country with little weight in the world. Its oil industry (except for the olive variety) is small. It is not being fought over by regional powers or given much attention by the US.

President Barack Obama barely mentioned Tunisia in his State of the Union speech, which seemed to mark a further step in Washington’s retreat from global engagement. The New York Times commentator Thomas Friedman has wondered how it came about that the Arab awakening country where the US has had the least involvement is the one where the most progress is being made towards a consensual democracy. A troubling thought for the Washington policy elite.

The leader of Tunisia’s Islamist Ennahda party, Rachid Ghannouchi, is a grandfatherly figure, having lived many years in exile in London. His public commitment to combining the tenets of Islam with democracy is long and well-documented, though his opponents question what he believes in his heart. Despite having been run as a police state for decades, Tunisia has had the all-important advantage of well-rooted independent institutions, such as the UGTT trade union federation, an independent human rights movement and a powerful legal profession. When the police state collapsed, these institutions helped to mediate between two antagonistic visions of the nature of the state – as a secular, Arab democracy or an ex-colony rediscovering its Islamic roots. It was these institutions that acted as midwife to a new constitution, a process that took three years of angry debate.

The contrast with Libya is strong. Libya had no independent institutions when Muammar Qaddafi’s dictatorship fell. Since then it has been pulled apart by regional, tribal and ethnic identities, all angling for their share of the oil revenues.

Even with these advantages, there was no guarantee that Tunisia would be able to draft a new constitution that made all sides feel comfortable. After Ennahda won 40 per cent of the vote in the 2011 elections, it became the majority party in the ruling coalition, and its politicians pulled every lever to change the identity of the state. Given the decades of police repression they had suffered, it is hardly surprising Ennahda felt they had earned the right to rule, even though they did not win a majority.

Last year Tunisia seemed headed towards civil war. Two figures from the Leftist opposition were shot dead on the street. Thugs from extremist Islamist groups intimidated trade unionists and secular politicians. Guns flowed in from Libya.

At the same time, Syria was collapsing into civil war and the Egyptian army stepped in to unseat the Muslim Brotherhood. Mr Ghannouchi saw the disastrous effect of the Brotherhood’s hubris in Egypt and the consequences in Syria of a breakdown in unity. He decided to compromise on the constitution.

This document is a triumph of political negotiation, seen as the most progressive in the Arab region. But no one should believe it provides the last word on the disputed issues of the role of Islam or women’s rights. There is no shortage of ambiguity.

On these pages over the past few days, two experts have suggested different ways it could be abused by one side to oppress the other. Hussein Ibish noted that the reference in the constitution to "protecting sanctities" could "set the stage for anti-blasphemy legislation in Tunisia that restricts freedom of speech". Intissar Fakir noted that the ban on "takfir" – declaring someone an infidel and, by extension, worthy of death – "could create a situation in which secularists use the law to target their Islamist opponents".

Both are right. Only in America is a constitution accorded a status only one rung below holy writ. In other countries the constitution represents, like any agreement, the balance of forces at the time it was signed. As such it is open to reinterpretation and change.

The fate of Tunisia is always to be caught between two civilisations. The president, Moncef Marzouki, has said that Tunisia’s history is 3,000 years of alternating confrontation and cooperation with the West, so the country’s identity cannot fail to be complex.

The best response to Ennahda’s relinquishing power should be two cheers for democracy. The process has been messy, and it will continue to be messy. It is an example to other states in the region. But the politicians must now show they can get the country back to work.

On Twitter: @aphilps