Is banning Hizb ut-Tahrir such a good idea, Tunisia?

As part of the Tunisian government’s recent security clampdown it has suggested banning the Islamist political party Hizb ut-Tahrir. However, the decision may be counterproductive, analysts argue.

In the aftermath of the bloodiest terrorist attack in Tunisian history, when a gunman killed 38 people at a beach resort in the tourist hot spot of Sousse, for which ISIS claimed responsibility, President Beji Caid Essebsi declared that the country was in a state of war with terrorism. However, Tunisia’s security forces and counter-terrorism policies are facing criticism as the Sousse attack came only a few months after two assailants killed 23 people at the Bardo Museum in the capital Tunis. Since then the state has pledged a security clampdown, including the closing of unauthorised mosques and employing a specific police force to patrol the country’s beaches.

In addition, shortly after Sousse, Essebsi indicated that groups such as the pan-Arab Islamist movement Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Party of Liberation, active in Tunisia for the past 30 years, would be dissolved if the party’s byelaws were not in line with the country’s constitution. Kamel Jendoubi, the minister to the head of government in charge of relations with constitutional institutions and civil society, told Tunisian radio station Shems FM that the government will give the group a deadline to finish the legal procedures “enabling it to issue a basic byelaw to regulate its activities.” According to Prime Minister Habib Essid, the group is responsible for “several offences.”

Hizb ut-Tahrir promotes the establishment of a caliphate and Sharia law; its activities have remained non-violent, without any known links to the country’s post-revolutionary terrorist attacks; and the group expressed its disapproval of the recent terrorism quickly: “We strongly condemn the terrorist attack, which took place in Sousse today,” the group declared in a statement on its website. “What is dangerous about this situation is the penetration of security, the number of victims and the symbolism of the operation,” it added. “Saving Tunisia from terrorists, the weak and traitors is one of our most urgent duties today.” The group went on to criticise the government’s response to the recent surge in radical activity: “We ask the government… what comes after this horrific incapability of understanding terrorism and stopping it?”

There have been no official measures to ban the group yet, but on 30 June it was prohibited from holding a press conference at Hotel Africa in the centre of Tunis, whereupon the media event was moved to the group’s headquarters. According to one Hizb ut-Tahrir member, who asked to remain anonymous, the Tunisian government is taking advantage of what happened in Sousse to crack down on the group. “Take note that it is not the first time that the government threatens to prevent all activities of our political party,” he explained, “but this time things look different, because the government wants to ban the party in the context of the fight against terrorism.” However, the party will not stop its political and intellectual struggle, he pledged: “Hizb ut-Tahrir is very far from ISIS on all accounts.” According to the Salafi activist, the Tunisian president has exceeded the limits of his power. “We feel that the government is weak and helpless,” he said. To him the state has been proven inefficient in its fight against terrorism. “If the government was serious about dealing with the issue of terrorism, it should begin with disclosing who is behind its fabrication and financing.”

The government’s security clampdown sets alarm bells ringing among those who compare the crackdown to the authoritarian practices during the era of former ruler Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, a period which was characterised by harsh repression of not just Islamist groups but all political opposition. One week after the Sousse attack, the president issued a 30-day State of Emergency, which grants greater powers to the country’s police and security forces, at the same time as it places restrictions on the media and public gatherings like demonstrations.

“When I heard that Hizb ut-Tahrir is being outlawed, I wondered what the government was trying to do,” noted political analyst Youssef Cherif shortly after the attack. “This party is indeed formed of stubborn elements who disregard the state and distort history, but they are not violent.” Banning the group and possibly other non-violent movements may even be counter-productive and lead to more radicalisation, argued Cherif, as it would push members underground.

“Hizb ut-Tahrir which is very radical, rejects violence,” International Crisis Group’s Michael Béchir Ayari said in an interview after the attack. “It could be controlled and could help channel the fringe of youth tempted by jihadism, rather than be dissolved.”

The youth of Hizb ut-Tahrir are unlikely to join a political party such as Nidaa Tounes if their party is banned, argued Cherif, and all can’t be jailed. “The more radical elements will certainly join ISIS,” he concluded. So, is banning Hizb ut-Tahrir really such a good idea?

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