Power Vacuum in the Middle East: The Case for Tunisia

Power Vacuum in the Middle East: The Case for Tunisia

Despite the latest, unprecedented revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and their impact in a region as politically stagnant as the Middle East, there remains a crucial concern over power vacuum. All the autocratic regimes of the region have worked so hard to drain their societies from any meaningful opposition. Such governments have always believed they know what is best for their people, who should be grateful in return for what is offered to them. In addition, regimes have sought to control all vital political, economic, and social foundations that might challenge their ruling, including the religious establishment. Thus, any opposition group is left with nothing to work with; and by default weakened with almost no resources or popular roots. Moreover, some of the opposition groups are accused either as working with a foreign agenda; or as an Islamist group that would bring chaos to the country and the region if reached to power. Nevertheless, opposition parties and the silent people share part of the responsibility for such condition by agreeing to the rules of the game offered by the ruling elites, without presenting and/or pressuring for any reforms or changes.  

            When we look at the situation in Tunis, we will find that former President Zine el-‘Abdin Ben ‘Ali made sure there is no opposition to his regime during his reign. He based his rule on what is called “performance legitimacy”. His grandiose rhetoric as the protector of the nation and the relative economic success were not enough justification to govern for 23 years. Thus, once the economic gains faded and large masses became aware and organized the regime went down. The police state and the ruling party in Tunisia were in control of every medium possible, especially the media that can be turned against the system. Several opposition and Islamic group leaders were expelled to Paris and London. In a nut shell, the Tunisian society has been facing 23 years of oppression, crushing political activism, and control of media and internet. All these tyrannical actions pushed any remaining political parties and opposition groups, which could fill in the political vacuum, to remain underground or play with the rules laid by Ben ‘Ali’s regime.

Since most, if not all, opposition parties out of service and weak; Tunisians were only left with powerful organized trade and labors unions. Fortunately for Tunisians, these unions were one of the things adopted from the French colonialism. The unions played a vital role in the lives of many Tunisian workers. It helped raise awareness among its members and led the strikes in the early days of the revolution. Another positive aspect in the Tunisian society was the quality of education and the economic success. This helped generate a well educated middle class. Together with the various syndicates worked side by side during the month long revolt to oust Ben ‘Ali. Thus, if it wasn’t for an educated middle class backed by powerful trade unions, Tunisians won’t have been able to stand against the state terror, economic distress, political stagnation, corruption, and a controlled iron fest on media and internet.

With the downfall of the Tunisian dictator and his ruling party, in addition to the resignation of Mohamed Ghannoushi, Prime Minister of the caretaker government, the political scene became open for all sorts of options and it’s unclear who would standout to fill in the power vacuum. Several of the opposition leaders and groups - banned under Ben ‘Ali - are back to the scene aspiring to play a role in the new Tunis. However, most Tunisians are anxious due to the weakness of the opposition. Some fear the organized Islamic political movement - Ennahdha or Renaissance - that is allied with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. They express concerns that the Islamic group might mess with the liberal social policies and western lifestyle in Tunisia.

The protesters’ demands were clear. The whole regime must fall, Ben ‘Ali isn’t enough. The departing prime minister acknowledged the people’s complaints saying “my resignation will provide a better atmosphere for the new era.” This will put pressure on the current government to take credible measures to bring stability to the country. That can happen only if they are seen to be serious about recognizing the people’s demands and implementing needed reforms.     

Power to the People or Power to the Leader?

Power to the People or Power to the Leader?

            

http://www.alleewillis.com/blog/

Whose authority should define a state’s policy; that of the people or the leader? In a utopian world, all groups work for the greater good of the country they inhabit. All benefit and share the resources of the community in mutual interests. Yet, these communities exist only on paper and in our dreams of a perfect society. Most of today’s governments are formed by direct election by the people. The electorate has an obligation toward their country to participate in the political process. They are responsible for choosing their representatives, whether in municipal or state level councils, through voting for the candidates they deem worthy and would take into consideration the constituencies’ needs, as well as the best interests of the country. In return, statesmen are expected to serve the people and the country, bearing in mind that the voters have power to re-elect or remove them from their seats. This process differs dramatically, however, in the Middle East.

            For over 60 years, the Middle East has been governed by the same leaders and/or parties, fueling ailing dictatorships that have lost all credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of its people. Such weak regimes worked hard to appease their people, while depriving them access to proper education, political participation, economic development, and universal freedoms. Ironically, this region used to be the beacon of civilization back in the Middle Ages when Europe was under the church rule. It allowed freedom, diversity, tolerance as well as scientific research and development. Yet, when we look to the current state of affairs in the Middle East, we find that it is characterized by quite the opposite: stagnation and backwardness. With the appearance of strong shells to conceal their fragile cores, rulers have worked hard to prolong their rule by creating strong connections with the local business elites and security apparatus in order to isolate them from the general public. In addition to the links of patronage, rulers exert a tremendous effort to form another powerful layer of international relations to prevent any possibility for international isolation and to further guarantee their place on top of the countries they rule. As a result, nothing has developed, albeit some minor economic and political policies that ultimately serve only the governing elite and their business group. Moreover, such policies are needed to project the façade of responding to the demands of their people, and to show the international community a delusional progress in those countries’ state of affairs. These tactics underscore the reality that governing bodies in the region grasp their power with no or limited contribution from the people, effectively stunning any opportunity for development and justice.

            The latest events in the region - ousting the Tunisian President Zine el-‘Abdin Bin ‘Ali, and mass demonstrations in Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, and Yemen – serve as illustrations of the unsustainable dreadful conditions in which people are living. These events are an outcome of built-up frustration with years of political stagnation, failed economic policies, and excessive government corruption over the years. The fierce grip by President Ben ‘Ali and his regime for 23 years has created nothing but despair and disgust among Tunisians. The ‘Jasmine Revolution’ in Tunisia was a direct outcome of frustration – with the police state, inflation, unemployment, and futile political and economic plans – that could no longer be contained. The people’s movement in Tunis reminds us that authoritarian regimes must collapse eventually. Governments cannot solely and forever depend on brutal force to lead. That said, history taught us also that big events like revolutions, coups or wars start when you least expect them. There are reasons for them but a simple event would trigger and bring about a different outcome. However, economic distress, political stagnation, corruption and a controlled iron fest on media and internet have been among the key factors for the people in Tunisia and Egypt to rise. The uprisings led to overthrowing an autocrat like Bin Ali in Tunisia and pressuring Mubarak to step down after 30 years ruling Egypt.

            At the end, it’s important to stress the fact that the people have an essential role to play in the development of any society. No matter how long a dictatorship would last it has to come to an end. People should know their rights and duties and be able to fight for them at all times. Moreover, maintaining a dialogue between governments and their people is important in keeping up with demands and concerns of the population. It also resembles a healthy society that is able to utter its anxieties, hardships, and suggestions for a better future.