Ansar Al-Sharia Congress: When Political Immaturity Confronts Governmental Clumsiness
The government refused to allow Ansar Al-Sharia to hold their third Congress and Kairouan has become a pseudo-military base ever since. Troops at the entrance of the city, military backup surrounding governmental institutions, and a state of panic amidst the inhabitants of the city… all for what? For political immaturity on the part of Ansar Al-Sharia and a lack of political know-how on that of the government.
Half a century of oppression generates extreme responses that need to be voiced, gotten out of the social system, and transcended in order to make a forward movement. Salafist psychology reads in Salafist behavior: “phonic activism”, deliberate introversion, and religious “self-proclaimed” elitism. This behavior is fully comprehensible, since most of Tunisian Salafists belong to a crushed, poorly-educated socio-economic lower class. They need to narrate and create themselves, and to exist, since academically and socio-economically speaking, they do not exist. Hence, Salafists had to invent self-congratulatory concepts, notably the repulsive “religious elitism”, the “Muslim Elect” à la Puritan, and therefore the aggressive extremist appearance that has been raising much unnecessary controversy for the last two years.
Once their psychology is boosted, Salafists deemed it wise to indulge in politics. They started organizing themselves in socio-political groupings that flirt with politics… sentimentally. Now, they think that their process of maturation is complete and logically, as the “political Sunna” dictates, evaluative congresses need to be held in the North-African spiritual capital of Islam, Kairouan. This is so far legitimate in terms of political technicality.
Little do our Salafists know that this very decision to hold a third congress, in such circumstances, testifies to their political immaturity. The reasons are very obvious: first, the government is not in a favorable popular situation -to allow such a congress to take place in a “Salaphoby-stricken” atmosphere is not a governmental option. Second, calling for the right to officially exist as a socio-political entity directly after a poorly-orchestrated sensational episode in Mount Chaambi should not have crossed the minds of a mature movement. Some might argue that these Salafists do not believe in politics. It is outwardly true, but they have political weight; they exert political pressure; and they comprise political party members, notably Hizb Al-Tahrir partisans. Thus, this congress would be a further step towards political unity, which would have been interesting, were it not for the afore-proven immaturity of Salafists who do not master “the art of the possible”.
The government is not exempt from fault in this issue either. It should have anticipated such a move from Ansar Al-Sharia -especially that this congress is not the first- and thought of pre-emptive measures. The Salafists tend to retrospectively evaluate the instances when the government “has shown leniency” towards other socio-political groups. After all, every social component is either organizing a gathering, holding a congress, or calling for marches and events. Why not Salafists? They were granted governmental permission to hold two congresses before, weren’t they? Why not now? The government, through its “circumstantial”, indecisive policies, puts itself in a dead end. It is not a matter of “phonic protest” anymore; it has acquired, for the Salafists, an existential dimension: “to [officially/socially/politically] be or not to be”.
Kairouan is now reaping the rotten fruit of political immaturity coupled with governmental “clumsiness”. I will not seek to offer solutions, because I am comfortably sitting back on “armchair knowledge” as all journalists, commentators, and analysts are. However, I will invite you to look at the bright side of the situation in a non sequitur: at least, there is a noticeable democratization of post-revolutionary tumults, from poor neighborhoods in Tunis, to Bizerte, to Kasserine, to Kairouan…- perchance, this would the death of regionalism in Tunisia! After all, “it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you”.
[…] Source Nawaat Autheur: Yosr Dridi […]
I don’t agree on the term of “political immaturity”: those guys are mature enough, they do know what they’re doing and have deliberately engaged in this confrontation. They don’t believe in the state of laws as we do. They believe that we’re wrong and that they have a sacred commitment to correct us even by mean of force.. primarily by mean of force I’ll say even if it’s pushing..
Personaly, I believe they’re right and that we’re wrong in so many matters but even so that doesn’t give them the right to behave as they do; I know they’ve done nothing notable till now but as I said they believe they have to do, so will we wait till they do? You have to hear the speech of their leaders to know that they’ll do no matters how much time will pass until first blood is drawn.. The government had the duty to take action, it did; clumsy it was maybe but we’ll never know the outcome of the spread of the so called Ansar Al-Sharia: will we still be able to restrain them if they grow more and more? I believe that a confrontation is inevitable with those guys, at least with their theoretical leaders; sooner we react better will be the outcome! The question is ethical maybe but still is legit: do you think it’s a good idea to give citizen rights to someone who don’t believe on citizenship?
To answer your question: Of course not. You don’t give these guys any rights. Only ‘we’ citizens who sit comfortably in our cosy homes in front of a monitor have rights, and ‘we’ decide who might be given rights. Under the founder of our glorious nation, Bourguiba, his minister for internal affairs affairs, Tahar Belkhodja, lectured once a reporter from Le Monde: Human rights are not meant for everybody. He was answering the question: Don’t you think torture is a violation of human rights? Only a stupid foreigner would ask such a question in the good old days of Tunisia. After the revolution a common misunderstanding was raised: some people started talking about ‘natural rights’ for the haves and the have nots. But happy days are here again. After sunday’s killing we are now reconciled with our past and our present government which made clear that only ‘we’ have rights, and ‘they’ have nothing. They are the weakest link. Goodbye. Talking about them our president Marzouki who used to be a doctor and a human rights activist, but this is forgotten and forgiven, said on TV: ‘they’ are microbes to be exterminated. Our security forces got the message. ‘They’ are a different entity. ‘We’ went to school and learned foreign languages which we speak with our foreign friends. We can show them how civilized we are. So, please, come and visit our beautiful beaches. They are being decontaminated, and this gives us a good feeling. The same feeling as our friend president Obama when his operators behind their monitor, somewhere in a small room in Texas, guide with a remote controlled drone to annihilate some poor moslim peasants in a shabby village in Afghanistan or Pakistan, many thousands miles away. But unlike our friend the president, the next day we don’t say: sorry, it was a mistake, a collateral damage. ‘We’ know too well what we are doing and we don’t need drones. We look the bastards right in the face and we eliminate them. ‘We’ are right and ‘they’ are wrong. God is with us and he is more powerful than their Allah.
‘We’ did not decide for them, ‘they’ decided for themselves.
I see. You’re the one who should decide for others.
You say I should but I don’t intend to: I’m only sitting comfortably in my cosy home in front of a monitor as you said; but can you say the same thing about them?
Very naive on your part nosr to advocate a let it be attitudes towards
these vile groups.
playing a deaf ear and consenting to their behaviour is akin to an approval
in imlplict and explicit term.
would like germany to allow the nazi to respiring to life,italy in her turn
reserect mussolini idiology?.
Ennahda had always another agenda about these grouping and that can
visibly proven by ghannouchi statements.
to ennahda these types supplemented by the militia of the revolution protection
represent a decoy on one hand softening their image.
on the other they are a force de frappe with tactics such intimidation to soften
and turn the nation populace a submissive lot.
it will be their tool to create a havoc when they are threatened with rejection
by tunisians.
all you have to do: verify is marzouki statement in the middle east quotar:
should the liberal minded tunisian s want a forceful stand against this government
a state of civil war will be created and ennahda force de frappe will not stand idle.
as for ghannouchi declaring on canal 2 fr that these groups are apolitical and
harmless is contrary to reality.
in brief all parties like the faschist or nazi have started small but became a massive
monsters: from little things big things grow a natural phenomena.
to say they are not a danger now is like giving then a green light.
they preach hate,secterism,isolating us from the rest of the world,make us vile and
better avoided than frequented and more.
yes will agree with you on the government clumsiness but u must highlight their
collaborative intent with these groupings.
in all their intentions a hidden evil is packaged as we will make a better moslem
out of you tunisians in their image.
Any person or a group that kills or main the police,the army,
or intimidate civilians,menace them,think they are above the law,
engage in desecrating the flag a symbol of a what a nation is.
that person or a group of people earned the wrath of a nation and
we reserve the right to exterminate as vermons.
no dialogue or intent of it should be accorded to these vile gutter
creatures: they think that they’re above the law of a nation than
that nation have every right to detox itself from them.
annahda was complicit in their propagation of them and should be seen
like a foot that has an expired good only for tossing out.
u 2 annahda:your user by date was meant to be many a moons ago.
Tunisia need detoxing from this religious schlamozzle.
I think it’s risky to expect that salafism in Tunisia will transcend into a more peaceful, democratic movement once the oppression of the past has been “voiced” and “gotten out of the social system”. As long as jihadist salafism rules in the muslim world, epecially in Saudi Arabia, the tunisian branch of this movement will include violent factions. The problem with jihadist islamism transcends national borders.
The Ennahdha/Ex-RDC, the party of the slogans
“The party of the so called family and ethics…?”
The Ennahdha is the party of the wrong
The party of the lazy and the naysayers
Under the banner of the religion
It is the party of the bloodsuckers,
The Robber’s barons and the charlatans
The party of the one way solution,
Of the slavery and the domination
The Ennahdha is the party of nothing
Of Moguls go getters
The party of the religious elite, the abusers
And the egocentrism
Ennahdha is the institution of the narcissists,
And the state nihilism
The egomaniacs and individualists
The party of the greedy, the dollar symbol,
The sexists and the bastards
The party of the wild capitalism,
Of the petty ones,
And the inhuman skepticism
Tunis, 04/18/2013
“Each one of us, always, aspires to a social equality and a decent life”
GOV was clumsy and strategically immature. A key fact many of us are not aware of is that GOV sent a compete mixed corps of police, military, and paramilitary (nat guard) forces to Kairouan. In military terms, a corps is no least than 20.000 men and on more than 45.000. This is an invasion force ! I simply cant see the point behind facing a CONGRESS with a CORPS ! I mean, not only is it sheer overkill, but it would also fule tensions and make the inhabitants of the city feel as if they were facing an invading force. And let us not forget the logistics needed for such a mobilization. GOV had to spend millions to equip the corps, send it to Kairouan, and evacuate it as well.
Mootaz: the government should reap what it sowed logistically and strategically speaking. I was analyzing the “goofs”-on the part of the government and Ansar Al-Sharia- that led to such a “pseudo-invasion” irritating and even terrorizing the city inhabitants.