Why Tunisia's Revolution Is Islamist-Free

And how their absence explains the quick fall of Ben Ali's regime.

BY MICHAEL KOPLOW | JANUARY 14, 2011

The reign of Tunisian President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali is over. His government's response to the steadily growing unrest in the country was marked by successive tactical retreats: On Jan. 12, he declared his intention to immediately do away with restrictions on the press and step down once his term expires in 2014. When that concession only emboldened the protesters further, he responded on Jan. 14 by sacking his government and announcing that new elections would be held in six months. And now, the latest news suggests that the military has stepped in to remove Ben Ali from power and the president has fled the country.

Given the historical ineffectiveness of Arab publics to effect real change in their governments and the Tunisian regime's reputation as perhaps the most repressive police state in the region, the events of the past week are nothing short of remarkable. And while reports and analyses have focused on the extraordinary nature of the protests, it is equally important to consider what has been missing -- namely, Islamists.

Unlike in Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, and most other secular Arab autocracies, the main challenge to the Tunisian regime has not come from Islamist opposition but from secular intellectuals, lawyers, and trade unionists. The absence of a strong Islamist presence is the result of an aggressive attempt by successive Tunisian regimes, dating back over a half-century, to eliminate Islamists from public life. Ben Ali enthusiastically took up this policy in the early 1990s, putting hundreds of members of the al-Nahda party, Tunisia's main Islamist movement, on trial amid widespread allegations of torture and sentencing party leaders to life imprisonment or exile. Most influential Tunisian Islamists now live abroad, while those who remain in Tunisia have been forced to form a coalition with unlikely secular and communist bedfellows.

The nature of the opposition and the willingness of the Tunisian government to back down are not coincidental. If it had been clear that Islamist opposition figures were playing a large role in the current unrest, the government would likely have doubled down on repressive measures. The Tunisian government is rooted in secular Arab nationalist ideology and has long taken its secularism and its nationalism more seriously than its neighbors. Habib Bourguiba, Ben Ali's predecessor and the father of the post-colonial Tunisian state, took over lands belonging to Islamic institutions, folded religious courts into the secular state judicial system, and enacted a secular personal status code upon coming to power.

Bourguiba, like Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in Turkey, viewed Islamists as an existential threat to the very nature of the Tunisian state. He viewed the promotion of secularism as linked to the mission and nature of the state, and because Islamists differed with him on this fundamental political principle, they were not allowed into the political system at all. Bourguiba displayed no desire for compromise on this question, calling for large-scale executions of Islamists following bombings at tourist resorts. He was also often hostile toward Muslim religious traditions, repeatedly referring to the veil in the early years of Tunisian independence as an "odious rag."

Ben Ali, who served as prime minister under Bourguiba, has taken a similarly hard line. Unlike other Arab leaders such as Morocco's King Mohammed VI or Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, he has been unwilling to adopt any sort of religious title or utilize Islamic imagery to justify his rule. Most importantly, Ben Ali never attempted to co-opt Islamists by controlling their entry into the political system, but instead excluded them entirely from the political dialogue.

This history is vital to understanding why the protests were successful in removing Ben Ali's government. There is an appreciation within the corridors of power in Tunis that the Islamists are not at the top of the pile of the latest unrest. The protesters, though they represent a threat to the political elite's vested interests, have not directly challenged the reigning creed of state secularism.

Ben Ali's fate may have been sealed when military officers -- who had been marginalized by the regime as it lavished money on family members and corrupt business elites -- demonstrated a willingness to stand down and protect protesters from the police and internal security services. However, a military coup would also represent no ideological challenge to the regime -- the state's mission of advancing secular nationalism will continue even after Ben Ali's removal from power. And in the event that the military willingly cedes power and holds new elections in six months, the decimation of the Islamist movement over the last two decades means that any serious challenger is bound to come from a similar ideological background.

The weakness of Tunisia's Islamist opposition also makes it difficult to forecast how other Middle Eastern regimes would react to similar protests. It is unthinkable, for example, that Mubarak would not choose to crack down more viciously on protesters given the very real possibility that, if overthrown, Egypt would become an Islamist state. Given the unique nature of Tunisian society, observers hoping that Ben Ali's fall will portend a similar fate for other Arab autocrats may be left waiting a lot longer than they might now think.

FETHI BELAID/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: DEMOCRACY, NORTH AFRICA
 

Michael Koplow is a doctoral candidate in the department of government Georgetown University.

TECHGUY222

8:16 PM ET

January 14, 2011

This brings up another

This brings up another interesting question. With the secular dictator gone, who will manage the Islamists? As Koplow writes, the Islamists were decimated by state persecution, not from public support of secularism. With the secular regime gone, there is nothing preventing the Islamist movement from spreading in Tunisia as it has in other Arabic countries. Although it is unlikely, one cannot exclude the possiblity that Tunisia will end up in a scenario similar to Iran's.

 

JUAN67

2:26 AM ET

January 15, 2011

They all were absent

1st of all, the protests in Tunisia have no real leadership and all the political movements there including labor and communists tried to ride the wave, the leadership in my opinion was Aljazeera and self destructive Benlali. So, Islamists or non-Islamists they all were absent

2nd, Sorry, but comparing Tunisia with Iran shows a lake of understanding of the different Islamic groups in the region. Although, there are no real chances for the the Tunisian Islamic Nahda group to take control, but If they did, I think they well go for the Turkish model because there are many similarities between the 2 cases.

 

MAKESSENSE

3:08 AM ET

January 17, 2011

Was John Locke a "Christian-ist?"

Were the Levellers in the English Civil War "Christian-ists"?

How about the English Republic's leader Cromwell?

They were literal, puritanical fundamentalists.

Every political idea they had came from what they thought was their precise and clear sticking to the word, their Holy Book.

How about the revolutionary who wrote his Two Treaties prior to the Glorious Revolution in 1688 - John Locke was a literal, fundamentalist religious person. His ideas about the role of the Crown (that is the State) were derived from his faith. He was what we would today call an utterly religious person in every sense of the term.

Does that make the fathers and mothers of the democratic impulse in England "Christian-ists"? They oppose the tyranny of arbitrary kings, and it was their Bible which gave them coverage.

They were most certainly not "secularists" or agnostics. Not one of them a liberal!

The Glorious Revolution - which set the scene for subseqent developments in political thought in Europe and its offshoot for the following 450 years to the present day - were set in motion by religious minds, motivated by ideals rooted in the same Abrahamic religion that motivates those demanding transparency, rule-based law and accountability in much of the Muslim-majority societies: What I think you call "Islam-ists".

The majority of Muslims in the world today live in reasonably pluralistic societies - arbitrary government is a thing of the past in Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Turkey. There are clear steps in the direction in Nigeria and much of non-Arab Muslim Africa.

This term "Islam-ist". The Western media had all sorts of hysterical TV coverage of the victory a decade ago of the "Islam ists" in Turkey's elections. How dreadful it all was - and some still do go on about it. But really, why wouldn't the democratic impulse in Islamic-majority societies come from people motivated by Muslim ideals of justice and goverance?

If there are free elections in Tunisia, chances are that in a few years a party very similar to the ruling party of Turkey will do very well in elections, that is what I would pick.

 

SILLYWILLY

7:50 PM ET

January 17, 2011

Oh yeah, total Christianist

If Locke were somehow teleported from 300+ years ago to the present day he would probably qualify as one heck of a hardcore loonie. In fact, if we just had a time machine, there are lots of fanatics we could import from centuries and millenia past to make Islamists look fairly normal by comparison.

 

BNATSFAN7

11:18 AM ET

January 18, 2011

Tunisia and Iranian Revolution

No way the Tunisian Revolution winds up like the Iranian 1979 Revolution. Iran's revolution was partly caused by the shah's increasing westernization. The ayataollahs also helped cause the revolution, as they have always been angry the Pahlavi's since the Shah's fathered more or less banned all religious things for a decade in the late 20's and early 30's. Religion does not seem to be important in Tunisian politics at all.