Hached, Bourguiba and Ghannouchi rescued Tunisia

The opportunity for candidates to put themselves forward for the presidential elections ended yesterday with dozens of figures from various ideological and political spectrums stepping up to the plate, days after the process of submitting and sorting the lists nominated for parliament was completed. With this, our country has taken a significant step towards achieving these critical merits in the democratic transitional phase which began with the freedom and dignity revolution four years ago.

In order for us to appreciate the significance of this step, we need to go back a year in history when Tunisia was witnessing the consequences of the second assassination that almost brought down the entire situation, especially since it occurred during the time of the Egyptian earthquake that revolted against the results of the electoral process. The earthquake succeeded in turning back the hands of time and tempting several internal and external parties opposed to the Arab Spring to kill the revolution in Tunisia.

Our country witnessed a very heated summer and early fall due to the protests and sit-ins calling for the dismissal of the government, dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, and for the military institution to take a page out from Egypt’s book.

Everything indicated that the situation was heading for complete decline or civil war, until the mechanisms of social politics gained by the country during the over half a century of the modern country’s age were put into effect. The men listed in the title of this article contributed and participated in the development of these mechanisms.

The leader Farhat Hached is credited with the establishment of the Tunisian General Labour Union (UGTT), which, at the time, did not only play the role of a specialised organisation that limited its activities to protecting its members. The union expanded its interests throughout the country’s history to also include national affairs. It contributed to the liberation battle and the country’s great revolution, which resulted in the martyrdom of the founding official.

During the independence period, the union continued to play the role of the protective umbrella for the civilian society and the political regulator, especially when the dictatorship became more intense. It also acted as a leader of the revolutionary movement, staging strikes on January 12, 13 and 14, 2011 which provided the necessary momentum to turn the Tunisian action into a comprehensive revolution.

When the October 23 ship was on the verge of sinking, which would also mean the end of the Arab Spring, the union provided a representative, in the form of its Secretary-General Hassine Abassi, to act, in the context of the national dialogue process, in partnership with historical civil organisations including the Tunisian Union for Industry, Commerce and Handicrafts, the Tunisian Human Rights League, and the Tunisia Bar Association, as a mediator between the concerned political and ideological parties in order to provide the suitable process for the withdrawal of the Troika government from a situation where it is impossible for it to stay, as it posed great danger to the unity of the country.

It contributed to keeping the flame of democracy and freedom alive in its infancy and the facilitation of the constitution that gained the consensus of the Tunisians and the election of independent bodies which represent the backbone of Tunisian democracy, especially the Independent High Electoral Commission (ISIE), leading up to the progress we are now witnessing towards free and fair elections.

Bourguiba also lay the foundations of the state, despite all of the criticism directed at him. The state was characterised by two features that played a significant role in rescuing the situation in the state and carrying it through the turbulent times. The first characteristic was the great sense of the objective nature of legitimacy in political work, which no leader after him was able to violate or go beyond, including he himself. This explains his resort to changing the constitution in the 1970s in order for him to assume presidency for life instead of forging the presidential elections when he realised the change in the people’s opinion of him, his weakened legitimacy, and his failure to resist clinging to authority after he got older and his illnesses caught up with him.

The November coup was unable to resist that legitimacy, and therefore resorted to derailing the process constitutionally, as did the political elites in the wake of the president feeling the country. The political elite activated Article 56 of the Constitution, followed by Article 57 the next day, which sparked a strange constitutional debate in a country that is witnessing such a deep revolution. The withdrawal of the Democratic Constitutional Rally affiliated with Bourguiba from the opposition’s sit-in and its refusal to participate in the besiegement of the states and provinces that was called for by some rigid parties during this time last year, is considered a turning point in this context.

The second characteristic established by Bourguiba is his keenness to keep the military institution far from political influences which made all the calls and urges, from those affected by the revolution and the democratic transitional phase to the military institution, to undermine the authority and end the experience fall on deaf ears that refrained from interfering in conflicts and only promoted the best interests of the state and values of the republic. The security institution also followed suit as it got burned for many years while it was being utilised by the dictatorship. The two institutions voiced their refusal on repeated occasions to remove the authority that was thrown in the streets, especially on February 6, 2013, and July 25, 2013.

The third side of this triangle is the contribution of the leader and founder of the Ennahda Islamic Movement Sheikh Rashid Ghannouchi who used all the credit and value he had gained from his historical experience and the lessons he learned from the catastrophes that hit the Islamists at various times, including those witnessed by his movement for 20 years. He also relied on the prestige he gained during his long political and scientific career, his knowledge of the mechanisms of political conflict, strong sense of balances of power, and his vision capable of correctly predicting events.

He also earned moral authority over the members of his movement and the elites in order to force them to take a step back in an unprecedented historical moment in which the largest party gives up its position in the government, breaking Arab traditions that believe the only honourable way to leave government is in a coffin after bitter decades of civil war that tears the country apart. This is currently what is occurring in our region, but Ghannouchi armed himself with a rare personal decision and refused, even after decades of harsh and difficult political struggles, to assume an authoritative positions. Instead, he played the role of the protector of freedoms.

He is the top strategist in the Islamic and national unity camp, and this prompted him to step down and meet his opponent and persevere in the face of the calls for exclusion and political isolation by his historical opponents.

These are the contributions of three leaders who were produced by the Tunisian political merger of mechanisms which allowed our country to be the shining exception until now in a region full of disappointments. Will these mechanisms succeed in preserving this bright beacon?

The mechanisms worked separately and were able to rescue the country from chaos and civil war. What would they be able to achieve if they worked in unity or even in coordination? Is this even possible?

All the indications nowadays allow us to be optimistic.

Translated from Arabi21, 23 September, 2014

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.