Why Tunisia’s Revolution Is Islamist-Free…
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.
H/t: Terry Glavin
Comment from Workers Liberty, including statement from the Communist Workers Party of Tunisia.
Kellie Strøm said,
January 16, 2011 at 1:57 am
This only half makes sense to me, and sounds awfully like an argument that being repressive is okay just so long as you repress the right people.
I don’t see the logic in arguing that Mubarak would choose to be tougher if he feared a religious takeover than if he feared a secular one, though it’s commonly argued that he has a freer hand as long as his allies fear a religious takeover, so he will play up that fear even if faced with a secular threat to his power.
SteveH said,
January 16, 2011 at 9:46 am
Yes, an emotional defence of fascist repression by Shiraz. Brought a tear to my eye.
The message is simple, where the people cannot be trusted let there be despotism.
I should point out that Arab nationalism has historically been more anti Zionist than this regime. This regime was more Western in its outlook, it wasn’t attempting to unify the Arab population. No way could it be described as Arab nationalist. This is why it is so popular among the ‘civilised’ regimes in the West and why they are laughably calling for a return of Law and order.
Still to Shiraz, the Arabs are either nationalists or Islamist.
Again very little about the economic problems underlying these protests, and you call yourself Marxists. How laughable.
Let us hope this starts a wave of protests throughout the region, and who knows maybe the British will get inspired to topple their own minority government.
Dr Paul said,
January 16, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Jim D: ‘ 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.’
Attempts by other regimes to ‘eliminate Islamists from public life’ don’t seem to have worked: look at Turkey, where an Islamicist party, albeit a not particularly virulent one, has been making successful challenges to the quasi-secular elements in the ruling class; and Iraq, where the secular Ba’ath has been replaced by a government of sectarian Shia parties, with Sunni extremists running amok in many areas. Egypt too is an example of where repression of Islamists could well backfire.
Non-religious or anti-religious regimes that carry out repressive and big-business policies are often a sure-fire way of giving credibility to Islamist parties. This happened not only in Turkey, Egypt and Iraq, but also in Iran in the 1970s, Pakistan and Algeria. Hopefully, Tunisia will be an exception to this trend.
Having been reading through Mark Curtis’ new book Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam, I would not be surprised that if a secular revolt in Tunisia really takes off, we will see the big powers surreptitiously backing an Islamist movement to derail it, it’s what they usually do.
jim denham said,
January 16, 2011 at 1:06 pm
I actually have some sympathy with Kellie’s point (comment #1, above). But to call the piece a “defence of fascist repression” (SteveH, #2) is ridiculous: the article clearly *supports* the uprising.
Also (Doc P please note) the article is *not* by me or anyone else associated with Shiraz: all you have to do is follow the link to find its provenance: like quite a lot of stuff we post, it’s simply an article that we (me in this case) think interesting and worth drawing to readers’ attention. I think the AWL statement is better politically.
Dr Paul said,
January 16, 2011 at 1:53 pm
My mistake to credit you for the article — sorry about that.
Clive said,
January 16, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Comments above that the article seems to endorse past repression seem right to me. And I’m not sure the argument’s very persuasive. Egypt – at least since 1981, when Islamists assassinated Sadat – has repressed Islamists pretty damn fiercely, but without even remotely eliminating them (on the contrary: as the author comments, it’s widely thought that in a free election the Muslim Brothers would win). It’s true that prior to that the Egyptian state, since 1952, veered between repression and encouragement; but 1981 is quite a long time ago, now!
What *is* heartening about Tunisia is the role that trade unions (and other secular organisations?) seem to be playing.
Andrew Coates said,
January 16, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Whatever our various judgements may be about Tunisia’s regime – readers of Le Monde Diplomtique have known for years that it had become a kletpocracy – I fail to see how the AWL can be said to have endorsed repression. The AWL does not back repression, as I would have thought too obvious to point out.
It was heartnening to see this,
I would say that in many respects Tunisia (that is its cities in the main) is a European country and this has more than a little to do with the present economic crisis affecting us.
The only issue at stake here is those on the deluded British left who back the repression of women, the left, and national minorities by Islamists
Clive said,
January 16, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Andrew: was that directed at me? I certainly wasn’t accusing the AWL of endorsing repression! But the article above, by Michael Koplow, does seem to if only by inference.
Nayme Hear said,
January 16, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Andrew, the shitty article posted by Jim justifies oppression and the rightwing nutjob that Jim found the article via also thinks that Islamism can be erradicated by imperialist violence and mass killing. The reason Jim posted that shitty article is because he agrees with it, or at any rate sympathizes with its arguments. Saying it was posted because it is”interesting and worth drawing to readers’ attention” is laugable.
Rosie said,
January 16, 2011 at 5:04 pm
http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2011/01/15/tunisia-democracy-freedom-and-workers%E2%80%99-rights
The AWL prints a statement from the Communist Workers’ Party of Tunisia.
These demands don’t sound particularly Communistic to me. They seem to be asking for a liberal democracy with functioning welfare state.
Rosie said,
January 16, 2011 at 5:27 pm
I didn’t read the article as endorsing the repression of Islamists by murder, torture etc, merely saying that is what happened. I know sod all about Tunisia, but didn’t Islamists go into exile, including some here? eg Rashid al-Ghannushi.
Wasn’t that his daughter Soumaya Ghannoushi who used to write a load of religious crap for the Guardian eg it’s the seculars who are the real intolerant ones, not the religious?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/oct/31/secularismsarrogantface?INTCMP=SRCH
SteveH said,
January 17, 2011 at 9:20 am
This article is a passionate heartfelt defence of fascist repression. The message could not be fucking clearer, where the people cannot be trusted to bring about the right sort of revolution (e.g. Iran) let terror and mass murder reign down on them and let despotism rule.
The reason you support this uprising is that you estimate the people can be trusted. Fucking big of you you so called fucking leftists.
You lot are a fucking disgrace, I would spit on your dead bodies.
jim denham said,
January 17, 2011 at 5:07 pm
As a general rule I’m in favour of simply deleting comments as insane (I mean that literally, btw) as the above. But in this case I’m, leaving it there as a dreadful warning of where the madder end of “anti-impewialism” gets you. Though, in fainess to sane political opponents, it’s clear that in SteveH’s case the issues would seem to be primarily those of mental health rather than just bad politics..
SteveH said,
January 17, 2011 at 5:31 pm
“it’s clear that in SteveH’s case the issues would seem to be primarily those of mental health rather than just bad politics..”
Pot and kettle Jimbo, pot and kettle!
maxdunbar said,
January 17, 2011 at 6:11 pm
People just condemn themselves don’t they?
Steve might as well be saying ‘I am a stupid and unpleasant man, please scroll past me’
SteveH said,
January 17, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Max,
I think the majority of comments agree with my position and rubbish the position of Shiraz. You should be embarrassed by this article.
Incidentally for really good analysis of this unfolding situation, rather than the horseshit served up here, try reading Lenins tomb. Link below:
http://leninology.blogspot.com/
maxdunbar said,
January 17, 2011 at 6:38 pm
Not at all, the shrieks of outrage from far left commenters tells me we must be doing something right.
SteveH said,
January 17, 2011 at 6:43 pm
“the shrieks of outrage from far left commenters tells me we must be doing something right.”
What supporting fascist repression because one day it may realise a progressive revolution. That is certainly a unique position to take by anyone of any political stripe.
maxdunbar said,
January 17, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Whereas your position is to attempt, badly, to portray Shiraz bloggers as absolute evil by putting words in their mouths
SteveH said,
January 17, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip! Yip!
jim denham said,
January 18, 2011 at 12:01 am
Hitchens on Tunisia: for the hard-of-thinking, I don’t altogether agree with 100% of it:
http://www.slate.com/id/2281450/
sackcloth and ashes said,
January 18, 2011 at 10:50 am
‘Incidentally for really good analysis of this unfolding situation, rather than the horseshit served up here, try reading Lenins tomb’.
Yeah, that’s right. Let’s all go and read some blog containing the online diarrhoea of a swuppie dickhead. Nice one. Give SteveH a crayon and a colouring book, and make sure there aren’t any sharp implements around him.
johng said,
January 18, 2011 at 1:46 pm
I thought this was an excellent piece. Reflected many of the themes and anxieties of actually existing activists. Not that this is of any interest to this site of course.
charliethechulo said,
January 18, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Not a bad article, Gameboy. But it’s quite critical of Islamism, so I’m surprised you think it’s “excellent.” Mind you, it doesn’t mention the proletariat or Marxism, so that may explain why you like it.
Btw: isn’t the following “pragmatic observation” a quite similar point to the one made in the Koplow article we posted above, that SteveH and other “anti-impewialists” have got themselves all upset about?
“… yet had the Tunisian crowds employed Islamic slogans it’s entirely possible the revolution would not have reached this point. Rather than ignoring events, Fox News and Christian Zionists would have demanded action against the anti-Christ, and Obama would have stomached far worse repression on Ben Ali’s part. I’m not suggesting that the Arab street consult a Washington PR firm before it decides on its slogans, merely making another pragmatic observation.”
johng said,
January 18, 2011 at 2:24 pm
This is also interesting. the trade unionists have just withdrawn from the government and the communists and some of the softer islamists seem to be the moving forces in these more socially radical elements of the movement.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/18/tunisia-ben-ali-dictator-coalition
(I really can’t be bothered to respond to the idiotic comments above. There seem to be one or two sensible people here by accident who unlike this site have a genuine interest in the region so I thought I’d post it). I
johng said,
January 18, 2011 at 2:33 pm
This is also interesting:
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/464/the-tunisian-revolution_initial-reflections_part-1-
Andrew Coates said,
January 18, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Rosie Soumaya Ghannoushi was on Channel Four and Introduced by Jon Snow was the daughter of a leader of a ‘moderate’ Islamist party.
They are not.
They are far-right totalitarians.
Yet another example of the decluded pro-religious liberals in the media fail to even look up their references.
Johng must reflect what le Nouvel Observateur reported this morning. Though the word they used was left not specifically communist. The presence of Islamists was indeed referred to.
I’d have though given the importance of the trade union federation (which has played a long-standing political and democratic role) is the thing to concenrate on.
sackcloth and ashes said,
January 18, 2011 at 4:21 pm
I notice that Michael Koplow is a PhD student at Georgetown, johng. I presume his effortst to get a doctorate will be more successful than yours. He’s already got himself in print, for example.
baldric said,
January 20, 2011 at 2:18 am
80 dead and its a case of,meet the new bosses same as the old ones.
SteveH said,
January 21, 2011 at 4:35 pm
“Given the historical ineffectiveness of Arab publics to effect real change in their governments”
Something to do with the interests of imperialists I suspect. Nasser springs to mind. Though no doubt the underlying point trying to be made here is that only enlightened white Westerners such as, erm, George Bush can affect real change! Unless of course these ‘Autarkies’ are a) secular and b) repressive. This appears to be an argument that puts the superstructure as cause and base as affect. And as other commenters has pointed out is historically unproven!
“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”
Or fascist repression to put it in a nice catchy term we can all understand. Didn’t the Nazi’s once try to eliminate some people from public life? I understand they employed some rather aggressive tactics. Still ends justify means.
“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.”
So decades of repression is ok because it reduced repression now!! Anti terror laws in the UK are applied far beyond terrorists. The repressive measures of the Tunisian regime were applied far beyond Islamists!
“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.”
The use of the term “more importantly” is a clear expression of support for this fascist repression.
“This history is vital to understanding why the protests were successful in removing Ben Ali’s government.”
Jumping the gun a bit here, all we have at the moment is what we had before but without Ben Ali!
“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”
Or in other words there is an appreciation that their power is safe!
“The protesters, though they represent a threat to the political elite’s vested interests, have not directly challenged the reigning creed of state secularism.”
For this guy there exists one type of secularism, all secularism is the same. It is hardly a Marxist exposition of events, is it? Again jumping the gun, he seems to acknowledge that this so called successful revolt will change nothing but the faces on the posters! And he seems happy with this.
“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.”
Here is the money shot! To affect change in the rest of the Arab world we should support fascist repression!
So to conclude, we have a successful overthrow of the government because of decades of fascist repression but nothing has really been overthrown!
Do they hand PhD’s like confetti in Georgetown?
Andrew Coates said,
January 21, 2011 at 5:16 pm
I would not be so sanguine about Tunisia being Islamist free.
This afternoon I’ve been listering to a special France-Culture programme on the Jasmine Revolution.
One section was devoted to this very topic.
They estimate that the Islamists will get at least 15% of the vote (before anyone dismissess the figure, that is parallel to say, Le Pen’s Front National). Another remark was the increased use of the reactionary Islamic dress-code, le voile.
So they are a minority, but a significant one.
Clive said,
January 21, 2011 at 8:53 pm
On the other hand, back in the 1990s, the Islamists were much stronger. (The rise of Islamism was a factor in Ben Ali’s coup in 1987 – ie, at first he tried to be more conciliatory towards them than Bourguiba had been, though that didn’t really work out for him…).
It’s striking, if you read commentary from that period, how prominent the Islamists seem to have been; the situation right now does seem rather different (although, of course, it could change).
SteveH said,
January 22, 2011 at 9:35 am
Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!
SteveH said,
January 22, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap! Yip! Yap!
charliethechulo said,
January 22, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Good stuff in today’s ‘Graun’ letters page from two AWL’ers:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/22/left-liberal-islamism-islamophobia