Middle East
Is Tunisia standing at a critical crossroads?
In Tunisia, which has been rocked by corruption, unsolved murders, and economic crisis under the 10-year Ennahda administration, the government is now in the hands of an unauthorized assembly and the President, whose public support weakens day by day. “Tunisia, where the tradition of grassroots democracy is relatively strong, will seemingly be standing at a critical crossroads in the near term,” notes Dr. Selim Sezer.
An early general election was held in Tunisia on December 17 to determine the new members of the 161-seat parliament. According to unofficial results, Independent High Authority for Elections in Tunisia announced that turnout rate was 11.22 percent. “In the first round of parliamentary elections, 1 million 25 thousand 418 voters cast ballots. After the votes counted, the turnout was measured as 11.22 percent,” said ISIE member Farouk Bouasker. The number of valid votes was 956,16 Bouasker reported, adding that the number of invalid votes was 45,613 and the number of blank votes was 23,789.
Farouk Bouasker, Head of the High Election Board, announced the election results. Photo: Yassine Gaid/AA
Bouasker announced that 23 candidates, who could win more than 50 percent of the votes in the region they were racing in, were elected to parliament in the first round, and a second round would be held in 131 regions to determine the remaining deputies. The final results of the early general elections are expected on January 19.
Before President Kais Saied dissolved the Assembly, the country had been ruled by the governments of the Ennahda Movement, the Tunisian affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, for 10 years. After the economic crisis hit the country and the Parliament chaired by Rached Ghannouchi became dysfunctional, Kais Saied froze the work of Parliament and lifted the parliamentary immunities. On 13 December 2021, Saied announced that with the “road map to the exit the political crisis”, the referendum on the constitutional amendment will be held in the country on 25 July 2022, and early general elections will be held on 17 December 2022, and the Parliament will remain closed until then. The referendum held on July 25 with the participation of 30.5 percent of voters, approved the new Constitution with 94.6 percent “yes” votes.
The fact that the turnout rate was low in the elections due to the parties boycotting the election, left questions over Saied’s legitimacy. The National Salvation Front, which includes opposition parties in the country, especially the Ennahda Party, has called for mass protests and sit-ins, demanding fresh presidential elections.
We talked about the process that led Tunisia to early elections, discussions on the President’s legitimacy and what awaits the country with Gedik University Faculty Member, Dr. Selim Sezer.
‘The Council will be Saied’s ‘advisory council’’’
- What was the process that brought Tunisia to the point where the President dissolved the Parliament, which resulted in the referendum and the election? Why did the country hold an early election?
Undoubtedly, the starting point of the process was President Kais Saied’s dismissal of the government in July last year and the dissolution of the Parliament. At the time, Saied alleged that the provisions of Article 80 of the Tunisian Constitution gave him such a mandate, notifying the speaker of the Parliament and prime minister with a phone-call and shelving both legislative and executive bodies. Although the article allowed for a state of emergency that would last only 30 days and said that work of the Parliament would not be terminated in the process, Kais Saied has ruled the country unilaterally for a long time. Again, although the constitution said that the Constitutional Court would decide whether the state of emergency would continue at the end of 30 days, there was no mechanism that could limit it in this process, as Saied prevented the establishment of the Constitutional Court, which was previously envisaged by vetoing the relevant law from the Parliament.
Naturally, during the Ennahda era, the country’s political atmosphere, in which serious corruption and unsolved murders prevailed, prompted the reaction of majority of the Tunisian people. However, Saied’s coup was supported by some of the main political actors in Tunisia, while at the same time it was the target of criticism from many actors, including some of Ennahda. Exactly one year later, during a new constitutional referendum in July this year, which gave the President very broad powers, the criticism became much more intense and spread to a much broader base. Tunisia’s Workers’ Party, for example, defined this referendum as “the registration of an autocratic regime to the public” and “clowning.” As is known, the participation rate in this referendum remained at 30%.
In order to complete the establishment of Saied’s personal regime, and at the same time to constitute a formal “legitimacy”, a new parliament had to be opened in place of the dissolved one. For this reason, the first round of the election was held recently, and a second round will be held in the coming months, and if there is no unexpected development; the Parliament, which will not go beyond Saied’s “advisory council” at best, will take office by March.
Photo: Royal Court of Saudi Arabia
‘People do not believe that the parliament will find a solution’
- The low turnout in the elections prompted a debate on the President’s legitimacy. Why do you think turnout rate was low? What are the challenges facing the President, whose legitimacy is questioned?
The record low voter turnout is due to several complementary reasons. First, the new parliament to be formed will have almost no real function. Deputies will not be able to dismiss the president and give the government a no-confidence vote. The draft laws submitted by the president to parliament will be a priority.
There will be no party groups in this dysfunctional parliament. Individual candidates have been placed before voters, not party lists, and most of these candidates are not recognized by the people.
Tunisia, on the other hand, has been experiencing a serious economic crisis for a long time. Basic consumables such as milk, sugar, butter is hard to find. People do not believe that a parliament that will arise from an election held in this environment and under these conditions can find a solution to any problem.
As a result, Tunisia’s major political parties, non-governmental organizations, and trade unions such as the UGTT had called for a boycott of the election. These calls received a fairly broad response, and 90 percent of voters did not go to the polls. In the previous elections, turnout rate ranged from 40-60%. After the participation rate was officially announced, the opposition formation called “Salvation Front”, including Ennahda, and many other movements and figures announced that Saied had lost his legitimacy and called for his resignation and public demonstrations. The pressure on Saied will be intense in the coming weeks and months.
‘He’s losing support day by day’
- Despite the opposition in the country, where does the President get the power to manage the process that began with the dissolution of the Parliament?
It is not possible to say that Kais Saied has international support that is worthy of note. Inside the country, he initially had much greater support and was elected president with more than 70 percent of the vote in 2019. What allowed him to advance the process that began with the dissolution of the Parliament in the summer of 2021 was that he was able to receive the support of the political spectrum at least in the early periods, and that he was deemed more preferable to various circles than to a political equation in which Ennahda and its allies were strong. However, it is possible to say that he loses another piece of its power, prestige, and legitimacy every day and his support base shrinks rapidly. Saied’s ability to maintain his current position seems to be due to the fragmentation of the opposition and the lack of a stronger actor within the country.
Necip al-Shaabi thinks that the people no longer support Said. Photo: Yassine Gaidi/AA
‘Ennahda’s fate is intertwined with the Salvation Front’
- For the last elections, “The last nail in the coffin of the Ennahda Movement” comments were made. Does Ennahda have a future in Tunisia?
Although the Ennahda movement has now lost much of its former strength as a political actor, it appears to be in a recovery effort with some of its allies. As a matter of fact, five political parties and some grassroots movements, including Ennahda, came together under the roof of the “Salvation Front” about six months ago. Ahmed Najib Chebbi, left-wing politician, has become the leader of this Front. The coalition aims to rebuild democracy after Kais Saied’s intervention in political life. From time to time, the movement was accused of trying to restore Ennahda’s power, but Chebbi repeatedly denied such claims. In any case, Ennahda’s political destiny seems to be intertwined with the destiny of this formation.
Tunisia has been in striking and deep loops for 12 years. In the future, perhaps as an interesting twist in history, it will be emphasized that the date of the rebellion against Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s personal regime and the economic crisis (17 December 2010) coincide with the date of the consolidation of Kais Saied’s personal regime and the start of the passive resistance against the economic crisis (17 December 2022). Although it is difficult to predict the results of the process in the medium and long term, Tunisia, where the tradition of grassroots democracy is relatively strong, will seemingly be standing at a critical crossroads in the near term.
The US State Department stated that it has waived human rights conditions on more than $300 million in military aid to Egypt.
The statement emphasised that this decision was taken in consideration of Cairo’s “helpful role” since the outbreak of the war against Iran.
Egypt began receiving substantial support from the US after signing a peace treaty with Israel in 1979.
Since the late 1980s, the country has received approximately $1.3 billion annually in US military assistance.
A portion of this aid is subject to conditions related to human rights and democracy, which can be waived on national security grounds.
Withholding funds, including during the administration of former US President Joe Biden, has caused tension between Cairo and Washington in the past.
A letter dated 21 September and addressed to various congressional committees, obtained by Reuters, stated that Secretary of State Marco Rubio “decided to waive the certification requirement under the fiscal year 2025 Foreign Military Financing programme for Egypt of $320 million.”
This waiver was subsequently confirmed by the State Department.
An accompanying memorandum justifying the decision stated that this portion of military aid was “essential for counterterrorism, border security, or non-proliferation programmes, or otherwise important to the national security interests of the United States.”
The memorandum, dated 4 September and bearing Rubio’s signature, stated: “Exercising this waiver authority is critical to the US-Egypt relationship and to US national security priorities, particularly given the helpful role Egypt has played in the aftermath of Operation Epic Fury.”
“Operation Epic Fury” is the designation used by the US military for the campaign launched jointly with Israel against Iran in late February.
The State Department memorandum, whose authenticity was confirmed by two sources in Washington familiar with the letter, did not provide detailed information regarding what was termed Egypt’s “helpful role”.
The State Department’s annual decision on military aid to Egypt typically covers funds allocated for the preceding fiscal year, which ends on 30 September.
A State Department spokesperson stated that Rubio waived the certification in the interest of US national security and that the US continues to cooperate with the Egyptian government across a range of issues.
In an emailed statement, the spokesperson said: “This waiver recognizes the importance of maintaining security cooperation with Egypt at a time of significant security challenges in the region.”
The Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not immediately comment on the matter.
The spillover effects of the Iran war have imposed a heavy toll on US security partners, including Egypt.
Owing to rising fuel prices and other disruptions, the Egyptian economy is passing through a difficult period.
Under the Biden administration, the US withheld portions of the annual military allocation on multiple occasions over Egypt’s human rights record.
In 2024, following the Hamas-led 7 October attack on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza, the Biden administration set aside human rights conditions, disbursing the entire $1.3 billion allocation to Egypt for the first time in its tenure.
Human rights organisations have long accused Egypt, under the administration of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, of widespread human rights abuses, including torture and enforced disappearances.
This week, Egyptian police detained six journalists from a fact-checking and investigative media outlet, accusing them of spreading false information on behalf of the banned Muslim Brotherhood.
Egyptian authorities state that they have taken steps to address human rights issues. Sisi said stability is paramount and that the government supports human rights by working to provide for basic needs.
Britain has significantly broadened its military export restrictions targeting Israel, suspending or rejecting more than 80 licences for items the IDF could use in Gaza.
This figure is nearly triple the number affected when the policy was first introduced in September 2024.
United Kingdom Minister of State for the Middle East Stephen Doughty said that as part of what he described as a “tighter system” for assessing exports to Israel, more than 50 further export applications have been refused since approximately 30 licences were initially suspended.
Under the initial decision taken in September 2024, 30 of roughly 350 licences were suspended after the British government concluded there was a “clear risk” that certain military exports could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.
The affected equipment included components for military aircraft, drones, naval systems, and targeting gear.
Doughty said additional measures adopted this month established what he termed a “double safeguard” mechanism within the approvals process.
Export applications must now be assessed both against existing international humanitarian law criteria and in light of Britain’s position on the legality of Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territories.
“We have so far suspended or refused more than 80 licences,” Doughty said, adding that he had personally examined each licence.
Despite the wider restrictions, British-origin parts entering the international F-35 fighter jet supply chain continue to be largely exempt.
The UK government argues that preventing British-made components from entering the global F-35 pool could undermine the programme as a whole and have serious consequences for the security of the UK and its allies.
Direct exports of F-35 parts intended specifically for Israel remain suspended.
Doughty defended maintaining the supply of components via the international programme, arguing that halting it could have severe ramifications for the broader European and allied security architecture.
Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Emily Thornberry challenged this position, arguing that the issue was political rather than purely legal.
Thornberry suggested adopting an approach similar to the Dutch model, under which components entering the international supply chain could be flagged as “not intended for aircraft bound for Israel”.
The initial suspension was implemented in September 2024 by then Foreign Secretary David Lammy.
Lammy stressed at the time that the measure did not constitute an arms embargo and applied solely to items assessed as usable in military operations in Gaza.
Since then, the policy has been tightened further under Prime Minister Andy Burnham.
The expanded export restrictions follow the Burnham government’s adoption of a more confrontational policy toward the Israeli government.
Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband drew sustained applause at the Labour Party’s annual conference in Liverpool after delivering a sharp critique of the Netanyahu government’s policies and defending the decision to ban trade with Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Accusing Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza, Miliband stated that the British government heard public outrage over the conflict, telling delegates: “We hear you. You were right.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with representatives of Gulf and Arab nations that lack diplomatic ties with Israel, including Saudi Arabia, during his weekend visit to the United Arab Emirates.
Sources close to the gathering told the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth on Monday that representatives from Morocco, Libya, Jordan, and Qatar also took part in the meeting.
Netanyahu made a unannounced visit to Abu Dhabi on Sunday, where he met with the country’s leader, Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
According to Israeli media, this marked the first time the United Arab Emirates officially confirmed a visit by Netanyahu.
The meeting was arranged by Mossad Director Roman Goffman “at the request of Saudi Arabia, which asked for Israel’s assistance against Houthi attacks in the Red Sea region,” according to Yedioth Ahronoth.
The discussions addressed Iran and the Houthi militia. The newspaper added that the Arab states heard from Israel that “Israel is prepared to assist countries in the region with air defence systems, just as it aided the UAE during the conflict with Iran.”
Conflict in Yemen intensified in September when Ansarullah militiamen launched a rapid offensive that seized Yemen’s entire Red Sea coastline, including the vital maritime corridor of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
The Yemeni resistance also imposed a blockade on Saudi Arabia’s energy exports and staged multiple attacks against the kingdom.
Saudi Arabia reportedly sought military assistance from the US to counter Ansarullah.
Washington declined to attack the Houthis directly, but announced that it would provide intelligence and targeting support.
Reporting on the same visit, The Jerusalem Post said Netanyahu spent six hours in the UAE and that the principal subject of his discussions with MBZ was Iran.
Citing sources familiar with the matter, the newspaper added that the trip came “after Netanyahu exerted heavy pressure on the United Arab Emirates to arrange a meeting ahead of the Israeli elections on 27 October.”
Separately, the Associated Press, citing a person with direct knowledge of the meeting, reported that Netanyahu’s visit to the UAE was arranged in part to ask MBZ to deny reports that he had warned the Israeli prime minister of an impending Hamas threat prior to 7 October 2023.
According to Israeli media, Netanyahu’s office denied the AP report, issuing the following statement:
“Fake news. The visit focused solely on strengthening ties between the two countries and on regional issues.”
Germany expands North Sea military ports and plans new naval base
Musk appointed co-director of Pentagon future warfare initiative
US waives human rights terms on $320m military aid to Egypt
Putin says Russia did not start war and warns of nuclear risks
European nations unite against US pressure over strategic oil stocks
-
Europe5 days agoEuropean unions urge governments to scrap all Palantir deals
-
Diplomacy5 days agoEast-West Forum in Istanbul highlights irreversible shift to multipolarity
-
Europe1 week agoEmmanuel Todd says West faces collapse amid Ukraine and Iran crises
-
Europe1 week agoEuropean intelligence chiefs divide over risk of Russian attack
-
Diplomacy1 week agoEast-West Forum in Istanbul to debate multipolarity and global order
-
Middle East1 week agoSharaa says 7 October must not shape Israel policy on Syria
-
America1 week agoRepublican support for Trump’s war with Iran drops sharply in polls
-
Middle East1 week agoPalestinian factions confront legitimacy crisis at Istanbul talks
