'We once revolted against a dictator. We’re ready to do it again.' Fathi Nasri/AFP/Getty Images

Karim Benabdallah looks tired. The 48-year-old activist and blogger has been actively engaged in Tunisian politics for more than 20 years. Yet as he gazes up at a carob tree, at the Belvedere Park in the hills above Tunis, his eyes seem weary. “We’re in a place established by those who once occupied us,” he says. “And we’re occupied by the ghosts of our past and present.”
Founded by the French, at the end of the 19th century, Belvedere Park feels like an appropriate spot to reflect on how much changes here — and how little. In 2009, after all, long-term dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali ran for his fifth term as president. A year later, he was gone, ousted in the Arab Spring’s first successful revolution.
Yet soon enough, another despot would come and take his place. Today, Kais Saied is running for his second term as president, one of only two approved candidates. As in 2009, the results are largely a foregone conclusion, with Tunisians expected to vote for a man who’s tightened his grip on their lives. Between political clampdowns and the suppression of criticism, no wonder many Tunisians fear a repeat of Ben Ali’s iron rule.
Not that the situation is completely hopeless. For as the Saied regime goes through the motions of democracy, and the economy wheezes on, Tunisians young and old fight to save something of their country’s Arab Spring, even if it may not be enough to banish the winter they now find themselves in.
Contemporary Tunisian politics can really be traced back to 14 July 2011. That Friday, Ben Ali dissolved his government and declared a state of emergency. A few hours later, he fled to Saudi Arabia, and the Tunisian people rejoiced. “We all bet our lives on 14 January!” is how Benabdallah puts it, recalling the massive street protests that forced Ben Ali into exile.
Yet just like other risings in Syria and Egypt, these happy memories would be crushed. For Benabdallah, the root of Tunisia’s problems can be summarised in a single word: Ennahda. A moderate Islamist movement, it dominated Tunisian politics in the years after 2011, and was a leading party in every post-revolutionary government until 2019. But though its name means “renaissance” in Arabic, Benabdallah says Ennahda ruled “without a vision” for Tunisia’s future.
That, Benabdallah continues, paved the way for Kais Saied’s landslide victory in the 2019 poll. “Ennahda produced the environment we’re in nowadays”, Benabdallah explains, arguing that while the Islamists claimed to be building Tunisian democracy, they in practice privileged short-term stability over proper reform in areas such as social justice and graft. Certainly, Saied’s remarkable rise reflects widespread disillusionment with the post-2011 political order, not least around the bread-and-butter economic issues that caused the revolution to start with.
But if Saied promised an anti-corruption drive before he entered office, under his rule the authorities have carried out waves of arrests, aimed at everyone from opposition groups to journalists.
Even so, the President still benefits from public discontent with the political elite, widely perceived as corrupt and incompetent. Saied’s own background surely helps here. A former law professor, some Tunisians continue to see him as a man of integrity, even as others continue to admire his supposed status as a political outsider. “Tunisians were fed up with parties,” concedes Najla Kodia, a member of the socialist Al Qotb party. “Saied seized the opportunity to initiate his putsch, and now he doesn’t want to give up his power.”
This context has become especially urgent over recent years. In the summer of 2021, amid a deepening economic crisis, Saied suspended parliament and took executive control of the country. A year later, he pushed through a new constitution granting himself almost unlimited power to rule by decree. Over just three years, then, he’s built a new hyper-presidential system and dismantled the liberal institutions established back in 2011.
The dire state of Tunisian democracy is clear everywhere you look. Freedom of expression, for instance, has shrunk. Promulgated in January 2019, Decree 54 allows the state to curtail independent voices under the cover of combating cybercrime. More than 70 political activists, lawyers, journalists and human-rights defenders have been arrested or prosecuted this way since the end of 2022.
As the election approaches, meanwhile, repression has become even more shameless. The media is gagged and judicial independence attacked, even as politicians are detained or prosecuted. Consider the case of Ayachi Zammel, a presidential candidate who nonetheless just received a hefty jail term for allegedly falsifying voter endorsements. That’s before you consider those 14 presidential contenders disqualified from running by Tunisia’s electoral commission, a body whose members are now nominated directly by President Saied.
In another unprecedented step, and just two weeks before Sunday’s presidential vote, Kais Saied even ordered parliament to amend the electoral law and strip the administrative court of its oversight authority. The tweak, which was adopted by the legislature last Friday, directly threatens the role of the judiciary in maintaining the integrity of an election process.
If Saied had managed to improve Tunisia’s ailing economy, this looming dictatorship might have mattered less. As it is, the erstwhile academic has struggled to improve on Ennahda’s record. “The ruling elite in all these years has been responsible for not changing the economic model as it should have done”, explains Nafaa Laribi, a human rights lawyer, with Saied and his fellow politicians all failing to open Tunisia’s creaking state-run economy to private investment.
In practice, these problems are clear across a range of metrics. For one thing, inflation remains high. For another, unemployment hovers at 15%. Growth, for its part, is stagnant, even as foreign debt hovered at about 90% of GDP in 2022. Food prices, already squeezed by the war in Ukraine, rose by almost 12% last year, while basic goods such as flour remain in short supply too. All told, half of public sector spending is now spent on the public payroll — leaving precious little for health, infrastructure and social services. No wonder Tunisia’s credit rating has slumped, making access to international markets even harder.
Squeezed between economic turmoil and a rising police state, what remains of Tunisia’s civil society has rallied. As politicians and activists caught wind of the amendment to the electoral law, the newly formed Tunisian Network for Rights and Freedoms staged a protest on 22 September, the sequel to another one the previous week. I watched as hundreds marched down Habib Bourguiba Avenue in central Tunis, chanting and shouting as they went.
But here too, history lies heavy. Beyond the usual anti-government banners, after all, the protesters equally tried to place their unhappiness within the broader revolutionary tradition, hardly surprising when Habib Bourguiba Avenue once served as the focal point of the 2011 protests. “The people want the fall of the regime!” protesters sang, evoking a cry made famous in Cairo and Damascus during those heady spring days in 2011.
Kodia, for her part, makes a similar link between the past and the present. “This amendment is another attempt to remove an institution that has dared to challenge the authority,” she says of the new electoral law, raising her voice as the crowd cheers around her. “And these elections are a façade — Kais Saied will take power by force once more.”
Beyond Leftists like Kodia, friends and relatives of political detainees attended the rally too. One journalist held a photo of Mourad Zeghidi, a legendary reporter arrested in May on vague speech charges. Nearby, I met Souhaieb Ferchichi, a campaigner for the I-Watch rights group, who dismissed a government that “scapegoats” food speculators and black migrants for its own failings.
Ferchichi is clearly determined to keep fighting, something he shares with younger Tunisians too. “Kais Saied thinks he sits on a throne and wants to stay there for his life,” says a student called Ines, who attended the demonstration with a friend. “We want to encourage more people to stop falling into fear, and open their eyes to this situation.”
Clearly, then, not every Tunisian is resigned to Saied’s rule. But can chanting and marching hope to displace him? Aymen Zaghdoudi is sceptical. “Tunisia,” suggests the academic and human rights expert, “is on the brink of going back to the pre-2011 era.” Quite aside from the ominous similarities between Saied and Ben Ali, Zaghdoudi points out that the opposition is just too “scattered” to be effective. Benabdallah agrees. “The mobilisation is there,” he says, “but it’s a scattered minority of people coming from very different camps.” A fair point: between Islamists and secularists, socialists and liberals, Tunisian politics is riven by factionalism.
Beyond these ideological cleavages, other observers point to the relative weakness of the country’s civil society, yet another consequence of Tunisia’s past. “The democratic transition was left unfinished because it didn’t succeed in creating solid political and independent institutions that would resist any kind of drift”, says Romdhane Ben Amor of the Tunisian Forum for Economic and Social Rights, noting that terrorist attacks and political assassinations stymied mature institutions alongside roiling economic turmoil.
Yet if Zaghdoudi says the result of today’s election is “likely known” in advance, he does retain some optimism. With the official opposition split, he nonetheless believes the Tunisian Network for Rights and Freedoms has the potential to unite civil society, not merely in its hatred of the president but also in formulating a broader vision for Tunisia’s cultural and economic future.
Change is surely needed. Tunisia, after all, is floundering. On a downtown street in Tunis, I watched unemployed young men sitting outside cafes, smoking and scrolling through their phones. Informal vendors were there too, waiting for buyers, as stinking bags of rubbish dotted the pavements. In two supermarkets I visited, supplies of sugar, semolina and coffee were all dwindling on the shelves. Milk and rice were nowhere to be found.
For those with long enough memories, these conditions feel eerily similar to those in 2010, just before Tunisia was enveloped by revolution alongside the rest of the Arab world. To put it differently, then, and even if he does romp to victory tomorrow, President Saied should surely be careful. As Ferchichi warns: “We once revolted against a dictator. We’re ready to do it again today, tomorrow, in the years to come.”
Not that Belvedere Park felt particularly revolutionary when I visited. At one point in our conversation, Benabdallah and I pass a pond, a place he remembers as a child. Back then, it teemed with ducks and fish. Now, though, the basin sits empty — and Benabdallah can’t help but joke. “Even they have had enough.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAt last it comes together; a sound basis for a safe, reliable minimum-carbon energy mix for the UK’s future. After years of dither the government is committed to problem-solving investment in new nuclear power generation. Firstly, it has taken Merkel’s standing down, to expose the folly of Germany’s abandonment of nuclear power which resulted in more coal burning and reliance upon Russian gas. Secondly, a strategic and ethical shift in policy has ended the danger of any involvement by communist China in our energy supply. A short term shortage in petrol and diesel has raised the public perception of energy supply vulnerability. And, I am sure, the M25 blockaders have highlighted the utter irrationality of the climate change zealots, many of whom still hate and fear nuclear energy. Aris Rousinos has summarised some key arguments well, but a critical point should be made, that the UK has a domestic capability in the form of our Rolls Royce reactor technology. Better late than never we should develop a standard mini-reactor, for modular power production. There is a possible world-wide market for a low cost, flexible means of nuclear energy supply at variable scale and location. We do need sufficient political energy in the first instance however.
GRAHAM PYCOCK
“standard mini-reactor,” – great news if possible. The modest casket sized devices stored in the ground, replaced every 20 years promise to bring energy to neighborhoods. The devices can nearly stand alone or be interconnected giving us the future. If combined with flow batteries and solar, the devices can be even smaller. A power franchise for every council or community.
Nuclear is the only solution for the next 30 years. Particularly smaller plants with overlapping capacity leaving us strategically less vulnerable to shortages from down times and terrorist attack
I was thinking of terrorism when I read your comment … if we developed many smaller nuclear plants, how would we secure them all from terrorist attacks? I suppose big plants are the same – what would happen if a terrorist flew a ‘plane into a nuclear power plant?
And there’s the waste – which would also have to be secured from terrorists dispersing it in places we wouldn’t want it to be dispersed.
TheGreen movement in America is totally against nuclear..Disposal issues such a long transport times leaving open the issue of accidents. No national depository site that is politically acceptable. Terrorism, and NIMBY…are other impediments. The process and cost and approvals process in America is anything but quick. In fact it is glacial as the Green movement sues every and all initiatives they do not like. The weight of environments litigation generally grinds things to a halt. Perhaps needed items. Luddites in the Green movement would be perfectly fine to out law cars and make bicycles the only mode of transport. We might be allow candles. Nothing short of deindustrialization will satisfy some. Sigh, America is a very hard place to find common sense and compromise these days.
Perhaps the moral of the story is that it’s time for the USA to destroy the Tyranny of the Lawyers, so that its elected politicians can rule instead.
Modular small reactors promise a way around those impossible to construct huge plants.
I thought I kept up pretty well with current affairs, but it was a surprise to hear from this article that the government have announced a push to open lots of nuclear power plants by 2050. It would be wonderful if there was such a push, and even more so if it was accompanied by a PR campaign to start to overcome the opposition and its delaying tactics. Nuclear is indeed our only hope of reducing CO2 emissions significantly without economic and social collapse.
“Lots of nuclear power plants” sounds great if that is what is really on offer (meaning, I hope, the smaller Rolls-Royce reactors). Huge power plants like Sizewell C, however, may seem like the answer until you know what building one of these entails. For all the NIMBY’s objecting to the destruction of their and the local, natural environment for the next 15 years, it seems more like Armageddon, with a legacy of untreatable nuclear waste on an unstable coast for many generations to come. I do wish the advocates of nuclear power had more specific knowledge on the subject.
I have always been a fan of nuclear power and I can’t see any logical arguments against it. There are many emotive arguments which start, ‘What happens if….. ‘ but arguments like that exist for everything.
Perhaps the biggest argument against it is the NIMBY thing. People might support nuclear power as long as it was situated in Lancashire and Yorkshire, well away from the Home Counties.
We will never go to nuclear power because in our democracy each of the 64 million people has to say something and be heard carefully. By the time all the answers have been collated and considered everyone will have forgotten the question. I would suggest 42 as a good answer.
There was a nuclear reactor in London for many years and may still be there but inactivated. In the early 70s the Navy was trying to get me into the nuke (bombers) program. The engineer of the diesel boat I was then serving in told me that when he did his nuclear course at Greenwich Naval College they had a small reactor in the basement on which all of his his course had to watchkeep. I don’t think Ken Livingstone was ever informed of its presence.
These may have been more common across the world than you think. I know there was a small reactor like this in Madrid during the Franco years when they were making tenative efforts towards a nuclear program that never got that far before his death.
The biggest argument against it is the storage of nuclear energy. But there are practical solutions to the problem and the high-end figures pushed by anti-nuclear activists about thousands of years of radioactivity seem to ignore the fact that radioactivity is an exponentially decaying phenomenon, so that it is only actual dangerous for a far, far smaller proption of its existence.
I used to live in a small French town which had a nuclear power plant in its commune. It was extremely popular, because it paid huge local taxes, which not only reduced the rates on private houses to a laughable level compared to the commune next door, but the surplus paid for a state of the art swimming pool, mediatek, gymnasium ( and of course , mairie). The church was virtually rebuilt , the roads were replaced, the flower beds in the public square were wondrous.
and of course the presence of a large number of well paid employees bunked up the house prices, too.
not many nimbys there.
Mon Dieu! France, it seems, is truly a master of nuclear power, and the air in France is exceedingly clean. So why did they try to foist old school diesel submarines on those Down Under?
Nuclear power works. Problems, such as storage/disposal of nuclear waste can be solved, and more coal/fossil fuel is not the answer for many of the reasons posted here. But the left (at the time) concluded that nuclear was bad, end of story. Many navies–perhaps the US leads the way in this–really know how to do nuclear power. There is an untapped reservoir of expertise willing and able to safely run nuclear power plants. Let’s do it!
“So why did they try to foist old school diesel submarines on those Down Under?” The Aussies didn’t want to offend their neighbors NZ who refuse docking to nuclear ships.
Good article, I agree that nuclear is the only way but Oh My God! I had missed the AngloModernist article you linked to. I love it! I bought all the ladybird books for my daughter and read them to her from an early age to try to inoculate her against the post-modern rubbish that she would soon be exposed to and to give her an optimistic vision of Britain – its past and its future.
Boris should be digging out the collection – as you say, it is the blueprint for Britain.
Mass production of nuclear submarines. Park them under the offshore windfarms and connect them up. Environmentalists will believe wind power works, and neo-cons will believe national defence is being properly funded.
Nuclear is clearly necessary, although if we keep increasing its presence across the world using current technologies we will be up against the relatively limited supply of uranium. What we need are thorium based breeder reactors.
Interesting in the 70s there was a lot of research in the UK into molten salt reactors which could have developed many of the technologies realistic thorium breeder reactors will need. But then the anti-nulcear crowd came in and banned it all.
Excellent pithy article, but I would like to add that as someone who lives on the Suffolk coast, near to Sizewell, the UK has to go for a faster, more flexible approach than those currently on offer, such as the mini reactors proposed by Rolls Royce.
The French nuclear technology being proposed for Sizewell C has suffered huge problems at sites in Normandy and Finland and the costs are ballooning. Add to this a coast line that is continually eroding each year and you have to wonder whether this is not a massive white elephant in the making.
Yes to nuclear, but only if it is a sound, safe approach that is used.
I agree. Small is Beautiful.
“Our own government’s push to open 16 new nuclear power stations by 2050 should be welcomed by green campaigners.”
The year 2050 will be a great time to be alive, assuming that the next 6 parliaments can be trusted to stick to policy formulated today, but what do we do for the next 30 years? I often forget (and I doubt that I am alone in this) how utterly dependent we are on a reliably constant supply of affordable electric power – Every aspect of our lives, and not just our indulgencies, requires electric current somewhere in the chain, from your Amazon deliveries, to the money that you imagine is in your bank account, to the clean water that flows from your tap . Climate change may indeed be as important as some claim, but right now it is the least of our worries,
You make good points but in my view climate change isn’t the least of our worries, it’s just one of our many worries all of which need attention.
Perhaps we Aussies could placate France by purchasing a reactor or trois funded by coal sales to the PRC. It’s already dark and soon to be very cold there.
.