On the day Tunisia’s democracy died, it fell to US Department of State spokesman Ned Price to deliver the Biden administration’s mealy-mouthed pieties.
Asked about the July 25 constitutional referendum that allowed Tunisian President Kais Saied to institutionalize one-man rule in the North African nation, Price offered the following observations:
“Well, we note the outcome that has been reported by the Independent High Authority for Elections and civil society election observers,” he said. “The referendum has been marked by low turnout. That is something we do note. A broad range of Tunisia’s civil society, media and political parties have expressed deep concerns regarding the referendum. And in particular, we note the widespread concerns among many Tunisians regarding the lack of an inclusive and transparent process and limited scope for genuine public debate during the drafting of the new constitution. We also note concerns that the new constitution includes weakened checks and balances that could compromise the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.”
Note the absence of direct criticism of the man who has garroted the Arab world’s most promising democracy. Instead of calling out Saied for his appropriation of near-absolute authority, the administration of US President Joe Biden again failed to live up to its own billing as a defender of democracy.
There would have been plenty to criticize. Saied seized control of the election commission ahead of the vote, in addition to muzzling the media, jerry-rigging the judiciary and jailing political opponents. The overwhelming majority of Tunisians chose not to vote, undermining the autocrat’s attempt to legitimize his power grab by refusing to participate in the stage-managed exercise.
Even taking at face value the election commission’s claim of a 30.4 percent turnout, it was an abysmal showing for Saied. By contrast, Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi managed a 38.6 percent turnout for his 2014 constitutional referendum.
The Tunisian president offered the lamest of excuses: More people would have voted if they had had two days instead of one, Saied said.
In the days ahead, Saied’s opponents are likely to make the most they can of the poor turnout to question the lawfulness of the new constitution — and by extension, the president’s right to rule.
Like autocrats everywhere, Saied could seek alternative sources of legitimacy. Expect government-supported rallies celebrating the constitution in Tunis and expressions of fealty from the armed forces. The president could also draw legitimacy from the willingness of foreign leaders — and especially leaders of democratic states — to do business with him. He would be reassured by a reluctance of democracy’s defenders to even criticize, much less condemn, his sham of a referendum.
Saied is likely to hope that the Biden administration does for him what the administration of former US president Barack Obama did for al-Sisi: Accept the new constitution as a fait accompli and look the other way as the Tunisian president uses it to tighten his grip over all levers of the state.
Biden should deny Saied that satisfaction. Instead, the US president can start making up for his failure to protect Tunisia’s democracy by making it clear that his administration has done more than “note” Saied’s attempt to institutionalize authoritarianism.
Biden is no slouch at using strong language in situations such as this. Only last November, he condemned Nicaraguan President Manuel Noriega for staging a “pantomime” election. Saied should get similar treatment.
Presidential rhetoric aside, the official US position should be that the referendum was too flawed for the results to hold any validity. Any move by Saied to exercise the powers arrogated to the presidency in the new constitution should be met by full-throated condemnation and, where possible, economic sanctions.
Biden should demand that Saied restore the independence of Tunisia’s judiciary as well as the freedom of its media, and work with opposition parties toward a power-sharing arrangement and fresh elections.
If Saied refuses, the US should withhold all aid for Tunisia and encourage its European partners to do likewise. The Biden administration should also be prepared to exercise the US veto on any IMF assistance for Tunisia.
That would hit Saied where it hurts the most. He desperately needs foreign funding and the IMF’s help to start repairing Tunisia’s crumbling economy. Failure to deliver on that front would swiftly remove even the limited support he enjoys, and put paid to any claims to legitimacy.
Biden has much to answer for in his failure to live up to his professed values. In Tunisia, he could to do something of note.
Bobby Ghosh is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering foreign affairs. Previously he was editor-in-chief at the Hindustan Times, managing editor at Quartz and international editor at Time. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
With the Year of the Snake reaching its conclusion on Monday next week, now is an opportune moment to reflect on the past year — a year marked by institutional strain and national resilience. For Taiwan, the Year of the Snake was a composite of political friction, economic momentum, social unease and strategic consolidation. In the political sphere, it was defined less by legislative productivity and more by partisan confrontation. The mass recall movement sought to remove 31 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators following the passage of controversial bills that expanded legislative powers and imposed sweeping budget cuts. While the effort
There is a story in India about a boy called Prahlad who was an ardent worshipper of Lord Narayana, whom his father considered an enemy. His son’s devotion vexed the father to the extent that he asked his sister, Holika, who could not be burned by fire, to sit with the boy in her lap and burn him to death. Prahlad knew about this evil plan, but sat in his aunt’s lap anyway. His faith won, as he remained unscathed by the fire, while his aunt was devoured by the flames. In some small way, Prahlad reminds me of Taiwan
When Hong Kong’s High Court sentenced newspaper owner Jimmy Lai (黎智英) to 20 years in prison this week, officials declared that his “heinous crimes” had long poisoned society and that his punishment represented justice restored. In their telling, Lai is the mastermind of Hong Kong’s unrest — the architect of a vast conspiracy that manipulated an otherwise contented population into defiance. They imply that removing him would lead to the return of stability. It is a politically convenient narrative — and a profoundly false one. Lai did not radicalize Hong Kong. He belonged to the same generation that fled from the Chinese
The top Chinese official in charge of Taiwan policy this week said that Beijing must gain dominance in cross-strait relations and firmly support “patriotic pro-reunification forces” in Taiwan. All Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials must “firmly grasp the initiative and dominance in cross-strait relations” to advance the “great cause of national reunification across the Taiwan Strait,” Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Wang Huning (王滬寧) said at the Taiwan Work Conference, China’s annual event outling policies on Taiwan. Wang also reiterated the need to adhere to the “one China principle” and the so-called “1992 consensus,” to support Taiwanese compatriots who firmly support
RSS