Anatomy of an Autocracy

Tunisia's deposed president once swept to power with bold promises of reform. What went wrong?

BY CHRISTOPHER ALEXANDER | JANUARY 14, 2011

As the end of his reign quickly approached this week, Tunisia's President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali attempted to conjure the spirit that buoyed his government in the months after he seized power more than 20 years ago.

In a televised address to the country on Jan. 13, Ben Ali -- speaking in colloquial Arabic and in unusually humble tones -- pledged not to run for reelection when his current term ends in 2014 and to usher in a gentler phase of governance in the meantime.

The offer was far too little, far too late, as the reaction in the streets of Tunis made immediately clear. But it wasn't just Ben Ali's tone that recalled an earlier era: In fact, Ben Ali's fall from power has had a remarkable similarity to his original rise.

In 1987, Tunisia teetered on the brink of a civil war between the tottering authoritarian government of President Habib Bourguiba and a popular Islamist movement. Ben Ali, who served as both interior minister and prime minister under Bourguiba, removed the president on the grounds that age and senility rendered him incompetent to govern.

In the months that followed, Ben Ali was widely hailed as the country's savior -- the prescient leader who pulled the country back from the abyss. By thwarting chaos, Ben Ali had saved a struggling economy as well as the country's secular political order.

But Ben Ali was more than a savior. He was also, people believed at the time, a democrat. He said all the right things about the need for political competition, transparency, freedom of opinion and expression. He also spoke about individual liberties -- freedom of conscience, the right to hold and express contrary opinions, and human rights. Ben Ali didn't just sound like a democrat. He sounded like a liberal democrat.

It was the prospect of legislative elections in 1989 that really ended the honeymoon. Ben Ali was not willing to allow an Islamist party onto the field. Nor was he willing to accept electoral reforms that gave the secular opposition parties any meaningful chance of winning. In fact, the electoral code became one of Ben Ali's handiest tools. On several occasions, and with much fanfare, Ben Ali announced "reforms" in the code. In reality, all of these measures were designed to limit opposition gains and prevent the parties from forming an effective alliance.

Some, perhaps even the president himself, might say that Ben Ali honestly intended to be the leader he appeared to be in his first year and a half and that he was forced to step back because of the need to make difficult economic reforms and fend off an Islamist movement at a time when the raging civil war in neighboring Algeria offered a grim reminder about the dangers of Islamist political influence.

But the results were undeniably ugly. Moroccans frequently refer to the 1960s through the 1980s as the "years of lead" -- a time of intense repression against the political opposition. The 1990s became Tunisia's decade of lead. The Islamists believed they had done everything required to satisfy the law and become a legal party. Ben Ali's refusal to admit them into the political game ignited a fierce and bloody conflict with the government. When push came to shove, Ben Ali pushed back -- hard. More than 10,000 Islamists and other opponents went to Ben Ali's prisons in the 1990s. As happens with many embattled regimes, Ben Ali's government developed a sense of paranoia. Any bit of criticism was considered aiding and abetting the Islamists. The government went after anyone who dared to complain.

ABDELHAK SENNA/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: ISLAM, DEMOCRACY, MIDDLE EAST
 

Christopher Alexander is Davidson College's McGee director of the Dean Rusk International Studies Program, an associate professor of political science, and author of Tunisia: Stability and Reform in the Modern Maghreb.

ABARWIG

11:19 PM ET

January 14, 2011

Electoral manipulation

Tunisia's legislative elections in 1989 stand in stark contrast with those in neighboring Algeria that same year. Both used majoritarian "winner-takes-all" systems but the only the FIS in Algeria was able to capitalize on it. Ben Ali's use of the single party list (with a fixed formula) seems to be a critical difference. It goes to show that manipulating the "rules of the game" can go a long way in structuring the opposition--until today.

P.S. Nice seeing an article from a Davidson faculty member. I am an alumni ('96) and former Dean Rusk student chair. I posted an article about electoral reform in Jordan several months ago.

 

OLIVER CHETTLE

9:39 AM ET

January 15, 2011

As a progressive conservative

As a progressive conservative I take offence at the idea that expressing support for freedom of conscience, the right to hold and express contrary opinions, and human rights made him a liberal [democrat]. Here in the UK, it is the liberal Tony Blair, who has done the most to erode our traditional liberties, including the passage of laws restricting freedom of speech.

 

PLEAB

2:02 AM ET

January 21, 2011

Progressive conservative is not an oxymoron

Progressive conservative is not an oxymoron, though it may sound that way to some.

I am in full agreement with you regarding Blair. I am beginning to think he not only looks unstable, but probably is. In any case, he is yesterday's news.

From all I can gather on this side of the pond, on the northern half of the continent, the Cameron/Clegg government is doing a reasonably good job. I am not particularly favourable to Cameron's economic orientation but in terms of dealing with the current fiscal situation, it is clear he must bring down expenditures. He has taken criticism from the United States wrt cuts in defense spending and from what I can ascertain, he isn't willing to cede control to officials in Washington.

My question is this:

Is this the real Cameron? Or is this the Cameron/Clegg dynamic we're seeing?

I like to see progressive conservative governments alternating with moderate social democratic ones; preferably for single terms. I no longer believe that it is possible for any party to maintain a reasonable connection with people who elected them over the long term. The old adage, power corrupts, seems inescapable.

I am on the left side of the political spectrum but I am growing weary of the effects of excessive do-gooderism. I think we ought not ignore the tendency of human beings to take the path of least resistance to the detriment of their character, work ethic and so on. I am unhappy about immigration policies that seem geared to providing short term boosts to narrow economic interests (cheap labour) at the expense of society as a whole.

Any thoughts?

 

VONRYANSEXPRESS

4:45 PM ET

January 15, 2011

Et La France?

Now cometh 'Sego'.

Ségolène Royal leader of the French Socialist Party, (current President of regional Poitou-Charente) and likely rematch opponent to Pres. Sarkozy, has offered the French PS (Parti socialiste) as 'election monitors' for future elections in Tunisia.

Given the acid-dripping that has already started in France over the presence of members of the Ben Ali family near French Disneyland, we can anticipate Tunisia becoming for Sarkozy in the next campaign what Iran and the Shah were to Jimmy Carter.

Beware of the French PS getting their mitts into Tunisia on any score. While French culture looms large in Tunisia, the mischief of the PS could be beyond the value brought by otherwise neutral observers.

If Islamist couch their escape from Ben Ali's oblivion by presenting as 'reformers' and get the imprimatur of the French left, the blinders worn by the secular socialists will miss the dangers of those they promote.

'Sego vs. Sarko' portends for Tunisia a proxy fight that will inure nothing good for the west or Tunisia.

 

OMNIHIL

12:11 AM ET

January 16, 2011

Social Media in relation to the Tunisian revolt

[ Quote: "Then there is social media. When the definitive history of this era gets written, Facebook will get its own chapter. Activists used Facebook to organize on the one space that the regime couldn't control -- cyberspace." ]

One thing about the excerpt above bothers me somewhat.

First of all, I fully agree with the second part; The Tunisian regime couldn't control 'cyberspace' (the internet), something the activists knew about and used to it's full potential, even with the rampant censorship and spying via malware..

What bothers me is the fact that you just mentioned Facebook. Facebook is just one form of social media, albeit a popular one, amongst the many used by the activists (Twitter, blogs, etc.).

I firmly believe that even if the regime would've been successful in blocking access to media such as Facebook and Twitter, activists would have utilized the various other means of communication that the internet offers (e-mail, IRC, VOIP, etc.) more extensively.
The main advantage Facebook has is the ease with which information can be shared to masses of people, so perhaps that it sped up communications via the internet, which in my opinion is what Facebook should be credited for, nothing more.

I would argue that the high availability of internet access in itself has been more vital to the role the internet (with Facebook as a part of it) played in Tunisia.
Rarely, if at all, have revolutions of this scale taken place in countries with such a high availability of internet access.

The internet decimated the applicability of the much utilized strategy 'divide et impera' (divide and conquer) completely, for it allowed isolated groups to keep eachother informed and up-to-date, without any real possibility of communications being completely severed. As the internet as a whole is not a controllable entity.

It seems to me that we witnessed for the first time what kind of a role the internet itself can play in regards to empowering the public during a full scale revolution.. And certainly not the last time.

Kind regards,

- Omnihil

------------------------
http://twitter.com/omnihil

 

PLEAB

2:22 AM ET

January 21, 2011

Everyone can take a lesson

I suspect that Ben-Ali's mistake was allowing himself to appear weak. His television address was a mistake. The opposition smelled blood and that sealed his fate.

What strikes me about the whole situation is how the answers all seem so self evident. A democrat, with a firm hand backed by the still relatively professional army (I believe) could move Tunisia forward and provide the entire Arab world with a non-petro based success story to emulate. My sense is that the secular traditions of Tunisian's provide a strong foundation on which to build a real democracy.

I doubt that other players in the region will be quite so friendly to an excessively democratic Tunisia fearing the effect it would have upon their own circumstances. There will be many players who will be strongly opposed to anything but more of the same.

My hope is that Europe, seeing its own dire economic circumstances and the never ending parade of North African economic migrants, will see an opportunity to help build and support a truly democratic Tunisia. All the ingredients are there IMHO.