The sentencing of opponents and other public figures to as much as 66 years in prison highlights the Tunisian president’s dismantling of political achievements.
Tunisia was not just the birthplace of the Arab Spring. In 2021, a decade after the movement swept across the region, it remained a flickering, yet precious beacon of democracy when other nations had swiftly fallen into chaos or authoritarianism. Tunisian President Kais Saied in July 2021 staged a self-coup and reversed most of his nation’s progress, dismantling institutions and snatching away his compatriots’ hard-won civil liberties.
Following his re-election last year — in a contest from which all significant opposition had been removed, and on a historically low turnout — he has redoubled his efforts. Civil society, business, the judiciary and the media, as well as political opponents, have all felt the pain, but it has not stopped with them. Last year, officials from the Tunisian Swimming Federation were arrested for plotting against state security over their failure to display the national flag at a competition.
Human Rights Watch last week said in a new report that arbitrary detention has become a cornerstone of the government’s repression, and that multiple detainees face the death penalty in cases relating to their public statements or political activities. It was published as a court sentenced opposition politicians, former officials and other prominent Tunisian figures to up to 66 years in jail following a mass trial.
The trumped-up conspiracy case (in which some defendants are still to be sentenced) includes charges such as plotting against the state and membership of a terrorist group. One of the many tried in absentia was the French intellectual Bernard-Henri Levy, who was reportedly handed 33 years.
The verdicts were never in much doubt. Saied in 2023 said that the accused politicians were “traitors and terrorists,” and that judges who acquitted them would be accomplices. The defendants included key figures from Ennahda, the largest opposition party — its cofounder, 83-year-old Rached Ghannouchi, was sentenced to 22 years in prison in a separate case in February. As if to ram home the message of the conspiracy case, the leading defense lawyer Ahmed Souab was arrested after calling proceedings a farce.
Western democratic partners of Tunisia have been strikingly and shamefully muted as Saied’s campaign of repression has unfolded. When ethnic violence and evictions followed his xenophobic and cynical attacks on undocumented migrants from sub-Saharan Africa two years ago — blaming them for the nation’s economic woes — relations remained cosy.
For the EU and the UK, the president’s willingness to control migrant flows has mattered far more than his crushing of domestic democratic impulses. The European Commission earlier this month proposed including Tunisia on a new EU list of safe nations of origin — allowing member states to speed up processing of asylum claims from those nations on the basis that they are unlikely to be successful. The court verdicts last week are just another reminder of why they should not.
Saied’s paranoia underscores the truth that he is not invincible. The failure to match material progress to democratic advances fueled his rise, but the nation’s economic travails have deepened under him. There is reportedly growing discomfort about his rule in military and governmental circles. Nonetheless, there is immense personal risk in speaking out. That makes it all the more admirable that some Tunisians are still willing to do so. They should not be left to defend what little remains of their democratic dream alone.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS