全球智库信息集成服务系统

Introduction

Tunisia’s 2019 presidential and parliamentary elections will be major milestones in the country’s path toward becoming a consolidated, liberal democracy. But merely holding elections will not produce a government that can address urgent challenges, such as youth unemployment, regional socioeconomic disparities, and rampant corruption. Delivering the needed political and economic reforms will require Tunisians to move beyond the stagnation and instability that have prevented progress. Since 2011, Tunisia has witnessed ten major government changes, and public trust in political parties and institutions has plummeted. Reversing the trend will demand a shift from the consensus model the country embraced during the early transition years to a system that creates real political opposition and acts as a check on those in office.

In the lead up to the elections, political parties, in particular, will need additional support from civil society and local government to develop clear policy platforms and communication strategies. This should help parties differentiate themselves and move away from personality-driven politics. Beyond 2019, parties, parliament, and the executive branch will need to undergo transparent, well-communicated institutional reform. The international community and private sector can provide essential additional resources, but political resolve and government effectiveness will be the fundamental factors in Tunisia’s success.

Weaknesses of the Consensus Model

The success of Tunisia’s political transition is often attributed to the ability of the ruling political parties, Ennahda and Nidaa Tounes, to overcome their differences and achieve consensus, especially since the 2014 elections.¹

That consensus was built on a “secularist-Islamist rapprochement” during the 2000s.² While the coalitions formed after 2011 were far different from those under former president Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, as political scientist Michele Angrist notes, the practice of consensus was “crucial to both the felling of the Ben Ali regime . . . and the ability of Tunisian civilians to navigate successfully the transition period from then to the Constituent Assembly elections in October 2011.”³ However, the constitution-drafting stage of the transition in 2012 and 2013 was marked by intense political polarization between Islamists and secularists. Islamist party Ennahda emerged victorious in the country’s first democratic elections. But in the wake of the assassination of two prominent secular political figures, the polarization reached its climax and threw the transition into turmoil. The implication of the political tensions was clear: either compromise or risk chaos.

One year later—through an exercise of compromise, inclusivity, and restraint—the country adopted a new constitution, replaced the incumbent government with a technocratic cabinet, and successfully carried out the second democratic national elections.⁴ An instrumental player in that effort was the National Dialogue Quartet, a group of human rights activists, labor union leaders, and lawyers who helped the warring political actors achieve consensus and who were later awarded the 2015 Nobel Peace Prize.⁵

After the 2014 legislative elections, in which Nidaa Tounes and Ennahda won eighty-five and sixty-nine seats, respectively, the two parties chose to share power. The coalition between the two largest political forces marked a new phase in the Tunisian transition: one that would tame political polarization and put ideological differences aside to focus on Tunisia’s urgent socioeconomic needs. As one public official put it, Tunisia went through a “dark time in 2011, 2012, and 2013 (political assassinations, major protests, raising the black Salafi flag in universities, etc.), which threatened civil peace in 2013. It was the culture of dialogue that we find on all levels that has allowed us to get through crises and big struggles.”⁶

President Beji Caid Essebsi and his party, Nidaa Tounes, further expanded the political tent in July 2016, creating the Carthage Agreement that formalized the establishment of a National Unity Government (NUG). Under the NUG, the ruling coalition (Ennahda, Nidaa Tounes, Afek Tounes, and the Free Patriotic Union) expanded to bring in five opposition parties (Machrou Tounes, al-Moubadara, al-Joumhouri, al-Massar, and Harakat el-Chaab), as well as three unions (the Tunisian General Labor Union, the Tunisian Union for Industry, Trade, and Handicrafts, and the Tunisian Union of Agriculture and Fishery).

The goal of the NUG was to stabilize the country by allowing major political parties and influential civil society groups to play a formal role in helping the country achieve its most important priorities: combatting terrorism, improving governance and fiscal policy, reducing unemployment, fighting corruption, and addressing regional disparities.⁷ The coalition government’s first major action was to replace then prime minister Habib Essid with Youssef Chahed, whose new cabinet was tasked with advancing the Carthage Agreement’s reform agenda.⁸

While the consensus model was crucial in protecting the fragile transition in 2012–2013 and helped society heal from a painful period, the NUG failed to move the country forward at the legislative level. First, it did not put an end to ideological polarization. As some scholars have noted, “Despite much fanfare of bringing together Islamists and secularists, as well as revolutionaries and the old regime, the national unity government continued to be plagued by these issues. Both in terms of levels of polarization and the issues of debate, power-sharing in Tunisia appears to have had little effect.”⁹ Bringing all parties—many of whom hold vastly different views on core political and social issues—into a single governing entity has not resulted in unity and policy coherence, but rather stagnation on most key policy matters.

The NUG left the country without a strong political opposition, leading to watered-down policies and an ineffective legislative agenda. The consensus model has thus acted as a brake on the state’s machinery by weakening institutions and undermining governmental performance. The policies that emanated from the power-sharing agreement blocked, postponed, or reversed core demands of the 2010–2011 uprising for change. While national unity governments are designed to make difficult policy decisions more feasible—as blame is shared between parties—in Tunisia, this did not occur. Both parties avoided passing much-needed reforms that were perceived as “politically costly and potentially explosive issues” that “could have caused the basic consensus in the political arena to collapse.”¹⁰

Reflecting the ongoing polarization within the political system, parliament has failed to fully establish constitutionally mandated bodies, such as the Constitutional Court, or has long delayed appointing their members. While all politicians agree that these actions are necessary to the healthy functioning of Tunisia’s democracy, the actions have become highly politicized, leaving parliament deadlocked. For instance, parliament took seven months to elect the new president of the Independent High Electoral Commission (ISIE), Nabil Baffoun, on January 31, 2019. With only seven months until the parliamentary and presidential elections, scheduled for October 6 and November 12, respectively, the ISIE has little time to raise public awareness about voter registration, register millions of new voters, and organizationally prepare for the elections.

Another consequence of the consensus model is that the coalition has avoided structural economic reforms, such as reducing the size of the public sector and fighting corruption, which would have fostered economic growth and entrepreneurship.¹¹ The ruling government has so far failed to bring about the two most essential 2011 revolutionary demands: work and dignity.¹² Indeed, by most economic indicators, the socioeconomic situation in Tunisia has worsened since 2014. The unemployment rate, especially among the young and educated, increased from 23 percent in 2010 to 30 percent in 2018; the corruption perception index improved by only two points from 2012 to 2018.¹³ And as a public official noted, “Today there are over ninety bills in parliament that have still not been debated or voted on. This policy of dialogue and consensus (despite the fact that it preserved peace) led to a slow political process that has affected the Tunisian economy and citizen’s faith in the system. This is one of the many negatives of this framework.”¹⁴ An international diplomat agreed, noting, “If every decision is made by consensus, it allows political leaders to avoid responsibility for taking decisions.”¹⁵

Not only has the Ennahda-Nidaa alliance failed to achieve its intended goals in the name of consensus, it has also threatened the democratic process by adopting regressive laws that reverse progress on revolutionaries’ aims. Without meaningful political opposition and a Constitutional Court to serve as the final arbiter in any controversial legislation, the coalition government, dominating more than 80 percent of the parliamentary seats, has been able to pass laws that have moved the country away from liberal democracy.¹⁶ The most poignant example is the 2017 Economic Reconciliation Law that granted amnesty to civil servants who carried out corrupt practices during the Ben Ali era, as long as they themselves did not benefit from their actions. This law undermined the work of the official transitional justice mechanism, the Truth and Dignity Commission, which was tasked with reviewing both economic and physical abuses during the prerevolutionary period. Despite strong civic activism against the law, the lack of credible opposition parties made it impossible to stop the law’s passage.¹⁷ Another example is the application of an existing 1978 Ben Ali–era emergency law, which granted the government the freedom to monitor the press, quash protests, and close mosques and civil society associations.¹⁸

The NUG and subsequent cabinet reshuffles have also brought more members of the prior regime into positions of power. As Yadh Ben Achour, former president of the official commission tasked with overseeing the constitutional reform process, noted, “The current majority coalition is increasingly implicated in the return of the anciens [old] and in blatant forms of corruption,” which he calls an “extreme insult to the revolution.”¹⁹ However, he acknowledged, “This is probably the price we have to pay for civil peace, even though it must break the heart of the friends of the revolution.”²⁰

Jump-Starting the Political System

Moving past the consensus model toward a more traditional form of democratic contestation is a lengthy and difficult process that will require strengthening Tunisia’s political parties and implementing institutional reforms. Weak parties founded around individuals rather than ideas lack both the ability and incentive to take strong stands on policy issues. In addition, the entire political apparatus is hamstrung by a lack of adequate human and financial resources to allow lawmakers and executive officials to make informed decisions based on the needs of their constituents.

Strengthen Political Parties

Strong and effective political parties are crucial to any successful democratization effort.²¹ As some have argued, a principal reason why Southern European democracies have been more successful at consolidation than their Latin American counterparts is the more advanced state of political organizations in countries such as Spain, Greece, or Portugal.²² Eight years after the revolution, most Tunisian political parties have not developed clear and refined platforms, remain highly personalized, and lack strong organizational underpinnings.²³

The party of Caid Essebsi, Nidaa Tounes, is particularly weak and may not survive the 2019 elections. As one former Nidaa member said, “Nidaa Tounes failed to become a party. It was an electoral machine, but not a party.”²⁴ During the past two government reshuffles, Nidaa Tounes has added more figures from the Ben Ali regime, leading to criticism from the public and other parties.²⁵ The party base comprises an unwieldy alliance of ideologically incompatible factions, set up to defeat Ennahda, and thus lacks a coherent political vision.²⁶

Consequently, after four years of governing, the Nidaa Tounes–led government has failed to deliver the most important goals of the 2011 revolution and has little positive progress to highlight in the upcoming electoral campaign.²⁷ As such, the party may focus on polarizing issues such as anti-Islamism to attract voters and differentiate itself from Ennahda. For instance, on September 24, 2018, Caid Essebsi announced the end of his party’s alliance with Ennahda after four years of governing as a coalition.²⁸ Shortly thereafter, he publicly supported the accusation that Ennahda planned the assassination of leftist leaders Chokri Belaid and Mohamed Brahmi in 2013, although he refrained from accusing Ennahda directly.²⁹ 

Except for Ennahda, the other political parties have also failed to build strong party institutions and develop competing political and economic agendas ahead of the 2019 elections. Numerous parties seem to have versions of the same three-point platform: strengthen state capacity, improve the economy, and reduce regional inequalities—but none has a concrete plan for how to do these things.³⁰ While parties recognize the need to improve their communication strategies and develop clear public policies, with less than a year to go until the elections, some parties—such as Tayyar, Machroua, and the Popular Front—have only just begun to define their positions on certain issues. Afek Tounes seems to have the clearest platform, with tangible policy proposals, and is developing an aggressive Facebook and ground campaign to communicate those ideas.³¹

Most political parties are hindered by inadequate party financing, limited access to media resources, and few offices outside of Tunis. According to a prominent opposition party previously in power, the media is largely “governed by lobbyists,” evidenced by its refusal to cover the party’s annual national conference in order to maintain focus on the dominant political party.³² In addition, a majority of political party offices are severely understaffed and underequipped.

Another significant shortcoming is that political parties in Tunisia are often closely identified with the party founder or current leader. The ruling party, Nidaa Tounes, is a case in point. As many political observers have highlighted, Caid Essebsi seems to be the only person holding the party’s ideologically diverse members together.³³ Mahmoud Ben Romdhane, one founder of Nidaa Tounes, argued that Nidaa is Caid Essebsi’s party and he is responsible for its failures. He also stated that it is not a democratic party and that Caid Essebsi does not believe in democracy within the party—“he is the party.” Romdhane argued that because secular Tunisians were “so afraid of Ennahda,” they accepted Caid Essebsi’s “undemocratic ways.”³⁴

Regardless, strong leadership is not sufficient to maintain party cohesion, specifically when it is coupled with poor internal management and a lack of democratic decisionmaking.³⁵ For instance, in 2015, Caid Essebsi was criticized for having helped his son Hafedh seize power within Nidaa Tounes in a “non-democratic way.” This led to a public fight between Hafedh and Youssef Chahed, despite being from the same party. The battle over who would control the levers of power following Caid Essebsi’s departure led to multiple resignations that left the party with only forty-one parliamentary seats, from an initial eighty-six, and made Nidaa the third-largest party in parliament. The leadership crisis led the ruling party to lose its parliamentary majority but also significantly weakened the party attachment among voters.³⁶

A similar fate befell the Congress for the Republic (CPR) party, which, in 2011, became the second-largest party in the National Constituent Assembly with twenty-nine seats. After the founder and head of the party, Moncef Marzouki, left his position to serve as Tunisia’s president, his party could no longer maintain its strong position in parliament. During the 2014 parliamentary elections, the CPR’s share of parliamentary seats fell from twenty-nine to four, and shortly afterward, the party decided to dissolve.³⁷

Mohsen Marzouk, founder of Machrou Tounes, noted that Tunisia is in a difficult situation where “you have to create parties in a time when people do not believe in parties.” Marzouk also pointed to the need for a new model of political bodies, based on new social groups such as entrepreneurs or protesters, with a vibrant center for meeting and exchanging ideas. He said, “Parties based on one leader will not work. The parties need to include social movements.”³⁸

Party tourism—in which members of parliament (MPs) frequently change parties or split off from their original party to form a new, smaller party—is another characteristic of Tunisia’s political landscape. For example, due to internal divisions within the ruling party since it was elected in 2014, Nidaa members have split into four different political parties, including Machrou Tounes, which became a major party holding fifteen seats.³⁹ More recently, Chahed formed a new parliamentary bloc, the National Coalition, as well as a political party, Tahya Tounes, after months-long political infighting between him and Caid Essebsi’s son.⁴⁰ Chahed, who used to be a marginal figure in Nidaa Tounes when he took office in 2016, has already attracted forty-four MPs, making his bloc the second-largest parliamentary group between Ennahda (sixty-eight) and Nidaa Tounes (forty-one).⁴¹ For instance, as another civil society activist stated, “The political process is not built on political programs but on personalities, which discourages people from voting and being involved. Despite the success we achieved since 2011, trust in the electoral process is diminishing. Since 2011, every election has had a lower turnout—this is why we are facing a legitimacy crisis.” ⁴²

Due to the absence of a strong base, deputies continuously resign and switch from one party to another, creating an incomprehensible political landscape.⁴³ Parties need to endure to present voters with clear, distinct, and consistent policy platforms and to allow them to evaluate past performance and express preferences. Regularly building and breaking coalitions may contribute to the erosion of accountability and democratic representation. It may also turn voters away from the democratic process toward other ways of expressing dissatisfaction with the state of affairs. The country has witnessed a continuing cycle of intense protests by frustrated citizens. In 2018 alone, there were more than 9,000 protests, signaling a massive erosion of trust between the public and the political system.⁴⁴ 

The continually expanding political landscape has now raised the number of officially registered political parties to about 215.⁴⁵ The 2018 municipal elections generated 2,074 electoral lists, including political parties, independent lists, and coalitions.⁴⁶ This may be because, under the current electoral system, a party only needs 3 percent of the votes to obtain a seat in parliament, likely encouraging the proliferation of smaller parties and alliances and therefore party fragmentation.⁴⁷ Some parties have proposed increasing the threshold, an issue that will probably to lead to contentious debate over the coming months.

It is true that a mosaic of fragmented Tunisian parties could hamper the ability of voters to make better political decisions and undermine governability, but simply raising the threshold for parties could backfire. As a former Nidaa member noted, Nidaa Tounes and Ennahda dominate the Tunisian political scene. While he initially left Nidaa to form his own party, he found there was no space for alternative parties.⁴⁸ The system must include a safeguard for smaller parties to play a role and allow for a diversity of voices within parliament, but it should not allow the party switching that has hurt the credibility of the entire system. One option would be to require parliamentary committees to include an opposition member within the committee leadership. Regardless, while individuals should not be prohibited from changing their personal party affiliation, lawmakers should consider preventing MPs from continuing to hold their seat in parliament should they switch parties. Thus, if an MP leaves the party for which he was elected, he would give up his seat, allowing the next person on the electoral list to take over that seat.

Polls suggest a growing disenchantment with not only the performances of political parties but also with democracy itself. According to the 2018 Afrobarometer survey, 81 percent of Tunisians do “not feel close to any political party,” and 79 percent either would not vote or would not know whom to vote for if elections were held tomorrow, which is alarming given the upcoming elections. The 2018 municipal elections may be an ominous indicator of what to expect. Voter turnout was only 36 percent, and independent candidates gained 33 percent of the vote, compared to 29 percent for Ennahda and 22 percent for Nidaa Tounes. This could easily be interpreted as a rejection of the entire political class.⁴⁹ Thus, it is not surprising that overall support for democracy dropped from 70 percent in 2013 to 46 percent in 2018.⁵⁰ Meanwhile, the support for democracy’s alternatives—such as military rule or one-party rule—has reached 47 percent and 41 percent, respectively.⁵¹ As a civil society actor from the long-marginalized rural city of Sidi Bouzid, where the uprising started, said, “Our elected political leaders must find solutions for the deep problems, as for now they are detached from the sufferings of everyday people.”⁵²

Implement Institutional Reform

Institutional reforms will be crucial to moving the country forward and reversing the current trend of public disillusionment. Parliament and the executive branch need sufficient human and financial resources to carry out legislative work and ensure the separation of powers, as mandated by the 2014 constitution. Most MPs do not have dedicated personal staff, and committees often share staff members between them.⁵³ MPs also lack an adequate travel budget to allow them to regularly visit their constituents.⁵⁴ As one civil society actor noted, “We cannot implement reforms without the means to do so. The parliament has the weakest budget of the three branches of government. A semi-parliamentary regime should give a lot of powers to the legislative branch, but today the parliament is weak . . . there are no rooms for the MPs to work in, no advisors to MPs, etc. This has a negative impact on parliament and slows reforms.”⁵⁵ 

To help restore its credibility, parliament must also work to address absenteeism, a trend that has been growing since 2014. Almost half of the ruling party deputies are absent on any given vote, as exemplified by the average voter participation of Ennahda (68 percent) and Nidaa Tounes (54 percent) in 2018.⁵⁶ According to Bawsala, a nongovernmental organization (NGO) in charge of monitoring parliament’s activities, the absence rate by legislators has climbed from 35 percent in 2014 to almost 50 percent in 2018.⁵⁷ Due in part to absenteeism, only one in five constitutionally mandated bodies has been established.⁵⁸

One clear step toward ensuring a separation of powers is to fully establish the Constitutional Court, which will act as a safeguard for the democratic transition. Doing so will be a major signal to the Tunisian public that the transition is moving forward and should ease some of the burden on the judiciary and parliament, which have each taken on aspects of the court’s role. The court should also oversee parliament and the executive branch, making sure that they carry out their duties according to the constitution, including providing adequate time for public review of draft legislation and complying with the asset declaration law. The court must be able to arbitrate disagreements among the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches should the president become incapacitated, as well as settle disputes that may arise over election results.

Lastly, the court should ensure that the president does not encroach on the duties of the government. According to the constitution, the president oversees defense, foreign relations, and national security. He has several enumerated powers in the constitution, including serving as the commander in chief of the armed forces, declaring war, appointing the grand mufti, and appointing and dismissing certain senior officials within the presidency. However, Caid