Ever since the attacks against the US Embassy and American school in Tunis, the world’s attention has been refocused on Tunisia. I have been holding my breath – and biting my tongue – since the events took place. I have read plenty of analyses about the situation in the meantime. Some blame the attacks on the spread of hate filled ideologies. Others blame it on armchair theories that begin with neo– or end with –ism. Others point the finger at the Islamist ruling party, Ennahda, and some others blame it on the governments general failure in instituting a genuine sense of security.
However, there could not be a simpler explanation for what happened last week. While the country set off global alarm bells, it is Tunisia’s internal sociopolitical landscape that points to only one thing: the country is recovering – not from zero but from subzero. It is recovering, not from nothingness, but from the complete and utter chaos that comes with the territory of going through a revolution. And it is recovering against enormous odds.
There exist two angles from which to analyze the embassy protests in Tunisia. The first is an institutional angle: what have governmental institutions been doing to secure a better future for the country? The second angle is a developmental one: how do young teenagers get sucked into joining movements that breed hate and intolerance? Who are these teenagers and what can the neighborhoods they hail from tell us about them? Have terrorist networks (such as Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, aka AQIM) begun opening operative cells in the country? Will a movement gain ground?
The Ministry of the Interior, which is the premier and sole entity responsible for the country’s general security, has not been maintaining any sense of order. It has failed to perform its prescribed duties and adequately supply security forces with the materials needed for them to do their job. It has also failed to reform the ministry from within: it is no secret that the ministry is ridden with corrupt vestigial remains of the former regime.
Yesterday, September 19, the Minister of the Interior, Ali Laarayedh, spoke before the Constituent Assembly. Laarayedh claimed that there are “organized militias” who are behind the attacks. Laarayedh has presented this excuse several times in the past in explaining similarly chaotic incidents. Yet the Tunisian people has yet to receive any answers in regards to these allegations. Under whose orders are these militias supposedly working, and with whose funding? The ministry has not specified a timetable, has not presented any viable agenda, and has not engaged in any organized efforts to “cleanse” the ministry from within.
It is also the fault of the Ministry of Religious Affairs: who are these imams and what are they preaching in these mosques? Do they have the proper education and expertise in Islamic jurisprudence before they begin to give their sermons every Friday? Before they speak to a youth that is (justly so) thirsty for meaning?
Developmentally, we need to recall what breeds terrorism. History tells us that what typically leads to terrorist acts is socioeconomic desperation. Empirical data through examples from all over the world point to one thing: it is macroeconomic failures that translate into the starvation of a people. Tunisia’s fat unemployment rate and its contribution to the ever widening gap between the rich and poor cannot be ignored. Whereas Tunisia used to have a relatively large middle-class, today, that middle socio-economic bracket is narrowing. Desperation also stems from the lack of proper education. In Tunisia’s case, the Ministry of Education’s has proven unable to solve the nation’s archaic, deteriorating schooling system by executing reforms from within.
It’s that prototypical 19-year-old boy who wakes up in the morning with nothing to do. He has no job and his classes seem absolutely pointless to him in the hopes of attaining employment. It is the young adult who feels that he simply has no agency over his very own life. It is that young man who is deftly recruited by gangs and terrorist networks.
What happened in Tunisia last week is a developmental issue that makes perfect chronological sense: following the euphoria of ousting a dictator, Tunisian society is now feeling the birth pangs of democracy.
Certainly what is most striking about the past week, however, are all the analyses gracing the Internet – particularly those written by authors hailing from the United States and Canada, where there is little understanding of North African politics due to an unfortunate language barrier. Due to the region’s colonial history, most of the current research published on North Africa is in French.
Said authors seem to take any event in Tunisia (or Libya) as evidence of some sort of grandiose neocolonialist, neoimperialist American scheme. What is even more behooving is when an article attributes events such as last week’s to some sort of invisible hand that orchestrates everything from behind a shroud of mystery. Admittedly, some of analyses do raise several points to consider in assessing United States foreign policy in the region – its global military apparatus, executing decades of occupation and political meddling, should not go unaccounted for. Yet, it is irresponsible to overlook the very real and concrete domestic factors that lead to this violence. By doing so, such analyses desperately try to fit what took place in Tunisia and Libya into a persistently simplistic, reductionist narrative. Two main world views are equally culpable in perpetuating this endless cycle of misattribution, too – those that fundamentally reduce the dynamics of Maghrebi politics to playing a peripheral role on the greater East vs. West battlefield, and those that reduce any violence that takes place in the MENA region to “Muslim rage”.*
Contrastingly on Tunisian TV, prime time political shows discuss the happenings through a highly political, highly domestic lens. The discussions center around deadlines, such the Constitution’s completion and ratification and the next elections. Show participants – politicians and members of civil society – are very much attempting to articulate a viable national identity. There is a much larger emphasis on the role of religion in government and society, freedom of expression, and institution-building. This is because the country’s political landscape inherently encompasses issues that are much more complex and far-reaching than an attack on an embassy.
Unfortunately, by reading the international headlines, global readers would never know that Tunisia is undergoing a process of rebirth – which nobody said was easy.
*The phrase used on NEWSWEEK’s Monday 17 September 2012 front page.
You’re the best, Wafa.
Best summary of the situation in Tunisia and believe me, I have been looking beyond NEWSWEEK for an explanation! It seems that the epicenter of reporting about “the Middle East” comes from Cairo. Ignoring the uniqueness of each country and the Maghreb region in particular, it becomes a “one size fits all” reporting. The misleading reporting about Tunisia could be improved by sending fluent Arabic speakers like Richard Engel of NBC to report in depth about the political situation. Another factor could be budgets of news organizations because what you write about is justification for pulling reporters out of various places and prioritizing could be done. Like Tunisia Live does, large U.S. news organizations should go get the story. But I have a suggestion for the short term to ignite the imaginations of the world about Tunisia: a major film about the incredible events from 2010-present. If done right, these birth pangs of democracy could be documented in a manner to accurately and uniquely portray Tunisia as a country with its best days ahead. Great job, Wafa. I want to send your fine article to all of the students in our delegation.
I typically enjoy reading your articles. This one leaves me empty, mostly because you too use cliches to explain this situation. As a result, your analysis lacks depth.
First, you don’t need to hold a PhD in Statistics to see a clear trend emerging throughout the Middle East, North Africa and beyond: after 10 years of failed diplomacy, the US government has a serious lack of credibility overseas. Now, the US is talking about helping young democracies in the Arab World; this is more like Trojan holding a conference on virginity to a group of college freshman.
Secondly, the current Tunisian government is quite simply incompetent. After months of broken promises and political infightings, the Troika is coming up short on addressing the grievances of a torn nation, and the first draft of the new constitution reads dangerously close to the Iranian one. So, although a few decided to become violent, most feel betrayed by a Tunisian government that wasn’t able to protect … its values and its hosts.
Had you addressed these 2 points, I would have been less critical of your work. Finally, I would like to very respectfully caution you on criticizing “armchair” theocrats who are full of ideas but short on solutions because, at times, you sound just like “them.”
Dear Mr. Smida,
Thanks for your feedback. I question whether you actually read the article, as it addresses both points you raised in very explicit terms. I would like to provide you with two excerpts from the article that respond to both of your points, respectively.
First, “Admittedly, some of analyses do raise several points to consider in assessing United States foreign policy in the region – its global military apparatus, executing decades of occupation and political meddling, should not go unaccounted for.”
In regards to the second point, the whole article admits a failure on the part of the government to ensure security. But in any case, below is another excerpt:
“The Ministry of the Interior, which is the premier and sole entity responsible for the country’s general security, has not been maintaining any sense of order. It has failed to perform its prescribed duties and adequately supply security forces with the materials needed for them to do their job. It has also failed to reform the ministry from within: it is no secret that the ministry is ridden with corrupt vestigial remains of the former regime.”
Third, I am not sure I quite understand what an armchair “theocrat” is.
Best always,
Wafa
Dear Wafa
Like Mondher, I usually read your posts and appreciated having Tunisian news in English. I am sorry to say that you completely missed the boat in your analysis of the events at the Embassy. Your analysis might be used for the general state of affairs in Tunisia but not for the attack on the American embassy.
Your post reads like something that is written by Ennahdha PR machine. As far as I am concerned, the specific events at the American Embassy, are the responsibilities of this government. THEY SIMPLY FAILED AN DID NOT DO THEIR JOB. THEIR INCOMPETENCE IS CATCHING UP WITH THEM. So Wafa, using the following statement to explain what went on at the embassy reads like an excuse and not an analysis…”What happened in Tunisia last week is a developmental issue that makes perfect chronological sense: following the euphoria of ousting a dictator, Tunisian society is now feeling the birth pangs of democracy.”
Finally, thanks for writing about Tunisian issues in English and I look forward to your next article.
Hi Tarek,
Thank you so much for your constructive feedback. Your comment really got me thinking – I feel like I must’ve miscommunicated my ideas if that’s the idea that came across, or if that was how my article was understood. I think my general opinion of the ruling party shows through more in previous articles. You make a good point: perhaps I should have more explicitly referenced Ennahda’s several “micro” failures that eventually led to this “macro” level failure.
I do want to point out though that the two concepts (of undergoing developmental difficulties and Ennahda’s general failure) are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the failure arises out of this development, and can be explained through such a lens.
I hope that better explains where I was coming from.
Best,
Wafa
Dear Walfa,
I did read your article and I did agree with most of the things you wrote. Your point of view is definitely more sophisticated than the vanilla reporting offered by the mainstream media. Beyond the ridiculous movie and the even more ridiculous response throughout the region, bigger issues are at stake. I didn’t feel you addressed them correctly, so please allow me to clarify my points.
1. Despite the State Department attempts to minimize the situation, there are clear signs that the US is loosing its grip on the entire region.
This should have been a key part of your article. The 3 lines you dedicated to it made it look like an afterthought. In other words, out of the 60 lines you wrote, this idea should have been developed to 20-30 lines. It would have been very interesting to get your perspective on this topic.
2. The Tunisian government (and not just the Ministry of the Interior) has failed to perform its duties to the satisfaction of its people. So much so that some are calling for the return of ZABA and others are sympathizing with right-wing religious groups.
Yes, you did point out the mistakes of various ministries and public officials but your article wasn’t clear enough on how unstable the situation really is. Most people do not believe that the country is “recovering,” they actually think the country is going backwards…
3. I cringe whenever I read cliches. In this case, what you said about what “breed terrorism,” isn’t accurate. Terrorism should be viewed as a medical condition not as an economical one. Those who become violents are depressed, disillusioned and disenchanted. In the US, people take pills (and some become suicidal as well), in the MENA region people blow themselves up. So economic conditions are just one variable in the equation and not necessarily the most important one.
4. Armchair theocrats referred to your comment about criticizing intellectuals (hence armchair) who see the evil hand of -ism everywhere and think that their duties are to save our religion and our culture (hence theocrats). In this article you too came across as someone who eloquently pointed out the faults of others but who didn’t really offer any practical solutions.
In conclusion, I agree with Tarek, reading your article didn’t make me feel that you “got it.” It seemed to send the message that these were just growing pains and that tomorrow the moon, the stars and the sun will all align for Tunisia. I think it’ll take more than that.
Please don’t misunderstand me, I do think that overall, the article was cleverly written and well researched. I just was expecting more from you…
[…] The media and US Embassy in Tunis fiasco: Force fitting a square into a circle. […]
A magna failure not a macro level issue.
allah is first and everything else is a
collateral damage… so it seems in their minds.
you loose the plot when u label the usa as a
colonial power dear author.
blaming the us when the sun doesn’t rise on tunis is a pure fantasy.
looking for an escape goats is a pretty much a sport in tunisia…plot,plot plot.
tunisia wouldn’t register a blip in the radar
of world scheme or affairs.
the price of khobza in djerba is not that important in a chicago man’s mind.
the problems and failures of tunisia is the tunisians themselves….good for nothing
from governance to the governed.
all indicaters are pointing:
their need to be moslems and martyrs.
priorities,morals,ignorance,twisted minds,
and values.. are chonkeys
it’s not a macro misplacement…it’s a magna
failure any way you look at it..
the police in tunisia ordered the cutting of trees on road sides of inter cities blaming
the trees for the cause of accidents.
with that thinking why not blame uncle sam
and the cia plots.
we got lots of beards and goats :plenty of hair to burn but the problems will remain just the same after the embassy.
there is not arm chair theocrats but
there is mat lice theocrats.
venom spitter is more appropriate to describe some of them..
theocrates sit in mats and bend to give you a whif of their smelly arses in their act
of hypcracy.
they bend to allah but show their arses to people but what comes out of their mouths is worse.
like monkeys the more they bend and climb
the more they show their arses.
the term arm chair positions is a bureaucratic public service job and has no relation to preachers or imams.
do imams in tunisia sit in an arm chair all day now and plot? ….since when?.
[…] phrase used on NEWSWEEK’s Monday 17 September 2012 front page. Article originally posted on Nawaat. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in […]