When security officers demand the dismissal of the government

The sit-in staged by thousands of security officers in front of the government palace is on the verge of causing unprecedented chaos in Tunisia. This has opened the door to dangerous and scary interpretations that have gone beyond the financial and social demands of the officers in question. Some have even mentioned that political parties may be behind this escalation. However, they did not offer any specific and credible identification of such parties.

What we are certain of is that those staging the sit-in described their movement as a “security revolution”, which drove the political leadership to condemn firmly “the violation of the sanctity of its headquarters and the chanting of political slogans and threats that are as far as possible from security union work, as well as using immoral language.” The leadership also considered this action to be “a threat of anarchy” which “cannot in any way be tolerated or condoned.” This means that the internal security forces union has entered into a direct confrontation with the legislative authority. It seems that the process of twisting arms on either side is likely to cause further escalation after the union decided to continue its protest.

We must admit that the working conditions of security officers in Tunisia are still dire, and this was acknowledged by the presidency, which promised to address the shortages in equipment and supplies, as well as improve their social and professional situation. However, security in Tunisia is still a hot issue that raises a number of puzzling questions.

Former President Ben Ali was mainly responsible for utilising the security agencies to support his regime and this allowed the ousted president to establish a police state. However, after the revolution, the state collapsed and the relationship between the people and security agencies changed; the fear barrier is no longer there.

When that happened, the security officers disowned the former regime and started to defend their social rights. In order to serve this purpose, security unions – unique in the Arab world – emerged in Tunisia. In an attempt to remove the security institution from the political utilisation game, these unions demanded “popular security”. Despite the importance of this experience, it revealed a number of challenges and dangers. How, for example, do they balance the equation of security officers performing their tasks and following the instructions of the leadership without question, with union pressure to improve working conditions for those officers, including demonstrations, hunger strikes and other forms of protest?

The experience of the security unions still requires some objective assessment, but it is certain that engaging in such an experiment has revealed contrasting opinions amongst the officers themselves. There are also differences in the interests of the various security agencies. This has led to pluralism within the security unions, and prevented the adoption of a united strategy. What happened last Thursday deepened the gap between these unions, as two of them signed an agreement with the government regarding a wage rise, while the third refused to accept the percentage on offer. The third union announced a series of protest actions, the most recent of which was the sit-in in front of the government palace. Given the magnitude of the dangerous violations in which the officers took part by participating in this protest, one of the rival unions condemned the action and demanded that their colleagues should be punished. They even accused them of politicising union work, which increased the chaos in the current general security sector and deepened the gap between the officers and their respective agencies.

What added to the danger posed by all of this is that it is happening during a complicated post-revolution phase, with Tunisia’s national security threatened by a terrorist organisation that may take advantage of the conflict in Libya and the dissatisfaction of the security agencies to deal another violent blow to the officers and vital state institutions. When security officers demand the dismissal of the government, I am reminded of the Ottoman Janissary army, and it may lead to the collapse of the state.

Translated from Al-Araby Al-Jadid, 1 March, 2016.

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