Tunisians, transitional justice and history

The ninth session of the public hearings organised by Tunisia’s Truth and Dignity Commission provoked different reactions to those of previous sessions. The session was largely devoted to the testimonies of activists who had lived through various phases of the national independence struggle, in which they fought in an armed struggle against the French colonizing power until 20 March 1956 when independence was declared. The session coincided with celebrations by Tunisians of the 61st anniversary of their country’s independence.

All the Commission’s previous sessions had provoked violent reactions, usually from supporters of the old regime and principally of the Ben Ali regime, which had ruled the country with an iron grip for nearly a quarter of a century. These testimonies revealed the horrific violations committed by the regime against its opponents, mostly opposition political activists of different leanings, especially Islamist and leftist activists, as well as other activists with no political affiliation such as trade unionists, intellectuals, independents and advocates for internet freedom. Victims also included ordinary citizens who were deprived of their livelihoods or dispossessed of their property for various reasons, often for random and inexplicable reasons.

These negative reactions to the hearings – generally by supporters of the former regime – are based on various arguments. Some accuse the testimonies of being distorted while others see them as being aimed at serving a particular political adversary (meaning the Ennahdha Party). Some argue that the hearings are “fueling conflict”, a move to divide and fragment society. Some have even gone so far as taking the matter to court on several occasions, demanding that it halt broadcasts of these sessions on the main national television channel and other channels in view of the “great harm caused to civil peace”. This initiative was led by a lawyer currently heading a party that claims to be the most faithful to Ben Ali and who was herself a leading figure in the former regime’s propaganda system before the revolution.

Read: Tunisia sentences former president Ben Ali to 6 years

However, the wave that accompanied the most recent session devoted to the violations that occurred during the struggle for independence is unprecedented in terms of size and range of responses, as well as the profiles of those who have intervened in the latest controversy and the scale of their mobilization.

Reactions came this time from supporters of Bourguiba (Tunisia’s first president after independence) and soon expanded to include Destourians (supporters of Tunisia’s ruling post-independence party), RCD supporters (supporters of the ruling party as renamed by Ben Ali) and supporters of Nidaa Tounes (the current ruling party). It later expanded to include history professors known for their leanings towards the former regime, with some of them even having worked as advisors or senior officials under Ben Ali.

These responses concern a subject that was “taboo” for many years. School textbooks, as well as public media and other ideological state organs, have for decades spoken of “the Youssefist sedition”. Meanwhile, they have remained silent on the many bitter facts related to the assassination of Saleh ben Youssef and other symbols of the national independence struggle and especially its Arab nationalist wing. They also maintain silence over the terrible waves of torture the country witnessed following this sharp split within the elite that led the independence struggle. The Commission gave a chance to those who consider themself victims to give their testimonies after they had submitted their files to the Commission.

I do not believe that the other side in this “conflict”, the victors in that struggle who went on to lead the country, consider themselves to be victims or even submitted files to the Commission.  Indeed, the testimonies and accompanying documents may prove that many of them were rewarded for their acts. They had lands distributed to them and most were appointed to senior positions in the institutions of the new Tunisian state, as well as benefiting from all the privileges available at that time. Most important among these was their monopoly over the title of “patriot” while labeling their opponents “traitors”. Some of those who testified at the last public hearing insisted that they should be absolved of this label, as a minimum level of restitution.

Read: Tunisia’s democratic transition has some achievements but still faces obstacles

Regardless of the validity of these accounts, the Commission is not an academic body tasked to document outcomes and confirm facts. That is the task of historians, whom the Commission has given a rare and golden opportunity to examine and investigate history further. These reactions, in my view, have one aim – to disrupt the transitional justice process and to thwart its efforts and bury the truth.

Some of these critics believe that re-visiting Tunisia’s history in this way will threaten the national unity of a country that all indicators suggest is on the brink of fragmentation – as if nothing unites it after the revolution – a society divided even about its flag, national anthem, history, past and belonging, let alone its future. Others believe that shaking the nation’s foundations built around Bourguiba may lead to the collapse of the building on everyone. Some imagine that the biggest beneficiary of this process is the Ennahdha Party and that the Tunisian way of life established by Bourguiba will be put into question in a context in which the intellectual flimsiness of the modernization process may undermine its achievements. Consequently, many of them hurried to Bourguiba’s mausoleum to receive his blessings and seek refuge in him.

This fear may be one of the strategies designed to put Ennahdha Party in a difficult situation and push it onto the defensive once again. This strategy has borne fruit. It was remarkable to see, during the party’s celebrations on the occasion of National Independence Day, that pictures Bourguiba appeared for the first time in the party’s headquarters. This puzzling precedent may be the result of either bold intellectual revisions or a deep fear of being accused of “not being modern” – a charge that, in its harshness and the sanctions it brings, is equivalent to the accusations of takfir (accusations of disbelief) propagated by extremist religious currents.

It is clear that some Tunisians do not want to look at their own image since the mirror of history may reveal many flaws and even deep scars that they had long concealed and embellished.

Translated from Al Araby Al Jadid , 2 April, 2017

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