His ambiguity giving way to his dangerousness, Tunisian President Kaïs Saïed tried on Saturday to add a brick to his hyper-presidentialist political project with the holding of bogus legislative elections. They end in a double boycott. First that, announced, of all the opposition parties, Islamists as secular. That then, unexpected, of the Tunisians themselves, who shunned the call to the polls with an abstentionist height of 91%.
An abstention which, tarnishing the legitimacy of Mr. Saïed, is both a popular expression of distress and skepticism. Distress in a context of serious economic crisis that this president cannot relieve. Skepticism in the face of an approach which is clearly aimed at electing a new Parliament which would only be decorative.
Tunisia, the precious cradle of the Arab Springs of 2011, is the subject of an attempt at radical deconstruction which turns into an “enlightened dictatorship” under this austere 64-year-old jurist, very democratically elected in October 2019 with the massive support of 73 % of vote. Kaïs Saïed is at the same time a fascinating phenomenon and one example among many others of the rise of authoritarian populism. In 2019, he will have succeeded in embodying the collective exasperation in the face of a revolution which certainly rid the country of the secular dictatorship of Ben Ali (1987-2011), but which is far, very far from having borne fruit on the socio level. -economic and political. He took advantage of the manifest stalemates of a nascent democracy where political parties bickered ad nauseam failed to improve the lot of the people and break the culture of corruption.
With the result that nine out of ten young people voted for this “anti-system” candidate three years ago, despite the fact that, on societal issues such as women’s rights, homosexuality and the death penalty, he is obtuse conservatism. The political class that reigned until then, starting with the Islamist party Ennahdha, essential since 2011, is not only slightly responsible for the emergence of this political figure.
What initially appealed to many was its engaging but generic promise of “grassroots democracy”, to return to the “people” the power usurped by the “elites”. he, players and concepts that are civil society, political parties and representative democracy. Instead of parliamentarianism, deemed to be a traitor to the popular will, he advocated the decentralization of powers for the election of non-partisan local councils, connected to local issues, which councils will, in a future that remains to be specified, represented at the Parliament by an unprecedented “National Assembly of the Regions”.
Huge construction site. The problem is that the gap has never ceased to widen between Mr. Saïed’s proposals and the pure and hard reality of the authoritarian system he is in the process of imposing.
First there was the coup de force of July 25, 2021 during which he dissolved the elected Parliament and assumed full powers in the name of “imminent danger”. Coup de force greeted by scenes of jubilation in the streets of Tunis. Finally, many people said to themselves, a man who will bring order to our troubled democracy.
This coup was followed by the drafting in isolation of a new Constitution adopted by referendum last summer, with 94% of the votes, a process marked by a massive abstention of 70%. A Constitution that concentrates executive power in the hands of the presidency and subjects elected officials to its priorities, without the power of censure and dismissal. A Constitution that defeats the secular and civil character of the State by linking Tunisia to the “Oumma [la communauté des croyants] Islamic” and, therefore, to the rules of Sharia. Serious drift.
Finally, Saïed imposed, ahead of the legislative elections on Sunday, a new electoral law diluting by all sorts of means the capacity for resistance and organization of political parties. Among the most retrograde provisions: abolition of the obligation of parity, so that there were only 122 women out of 1058 candidates in this election. The “people” of Mr. Saïed are essentially masculine.
These elections come a month after the 18e Summit of La Francophonie, which took place in Djerba against a backdrop of palpable friction. Voices had pleaded in favor of postponing the summit. Justin Trudeau finally went there, not without ostensibly avoiding Mr. Saïed. Emmanuel Macron, for his part, met him well, but he left without waiting for the end of the summit, as a sign of protest.
François Legault also met him, believing that in view of the legislative elections which were to be held a few weeks later, it was a question of “giving him a chance”. We can see the result: these legislative elections were anything but democratic. It would be nice if Mr. Legault, if ever we ask him the question, be a little less quick to give him a second.