The results for the Tunisian elections are revealed, region after region. As expected, Rached Ghannouchi’s Ennahdha is granted about 35-40% of the votes, about 16-17% for Ettakatol and 15-16% for Moncef Marzouki’s CPR. The three main political forces of the country as thus one religious party and two secular parties, in a configuration where none of them can be a majority alone. Together, they will be in charge of writing the new Constitution of Tunisia.
The severe defeat of PDP and PDM parties, traditional secular left, can be understood by the fact that among all secular parties, Tunisians favored the ones that showed an interest for Tunisians daily life problems and a will to conciliate with islamists. Indeed, PDM and PDP main campaign effort was about ‘countering ennahdha’, thus giving to Tunisians the impression of them being nothing else than parties interested in he political game more than they are in the country’s future.
The state of the things might well be the best option for Tunisia, where an equilibrum between religious and secular forces would be the best guarantee of simultaneous stability and progress. After 60years of forced secularism, a full secular power would have had a taste of continuation and a full islamist would have been at odds with the tunisian society. Also, Tunisians have been ruled in the past only by governments originating from a unique party. Tunisia is thus experiencing multipartism for the first time of its History.
One point though remains unclear: the very high scores of Hechmi Hamdi in Sidi Bouzid, the place where the revolution was born. Hechmi Hamdi, director of the London-based TV channed Al Mustaqilah, close to Ben Ali in the past and who presents himself as a moderate islamist, gained up to 90% of the votes in some polling stations. The ISIE (who organized and managed the elections) should investigate on the possibility of violation of the elections code.
We can from now forsee the new constitution that’ll come out of this Assembly: Islam will remain religion of State, although the primary source of law won’t be Islamic law. A strong focus on Human Rights, together with a presevation of freedom of speech and opinion will be granted. The state will be hopefully bound to a stronger social role towards citizens and a better protection of the weakest people in our country. The hardest part of the work will be certainly to rethink and reform justice.
These first elections were the first step towards our new Tunisia. They were successfully held and that was our first victory over tyranny: to have not fallen into chaos. Now, we are ready to work hard to make of the New Tunisia a successful common project.
Today is a bright day for our beloved Tunisia. Today we show the world, and most important we show to ourselves, that we are free people. Our voting card is our weapon to defend ou freedom. Whatever the result will be, the victory for Tunisia would have been to organize fair, free and organized elections only 9 months after the end of a dictatoship. Tunisians are massicerly participating: the waiting queues are reported to be sometimes 200meters long and the ewaiting time sometimes near to 2hours.
As an expat, I voted in Geneva, in the Hotel Warwick. We were given clear instructions and besides the organizing staff there was extenal observers and I could count not less than five acredicted oubservers in the room.
On the technical side, after droping the ballot in the box, we had to soak a finger in a little bottle containing blue ink. The pictures of Tunisian citizens proudly showing their blue finger to the camera are flourishing by hundreds on the internet. Of course, I will not resist to the pleasure to show you mine as well.
Tunisians united to oust a dictator: because a whole people wanted their freedom; they wanted to have their right to speak and chose their rulers, the right to live decently and the right to not live with constant fear. So was the Jasmine Revolution of January 14. It is then with much enthusiasm that hundreds of political parties, syndicates and associations were created. It is for building the new country, with a constitution shaped just like its population, that were announced the elections for the constitutive assembly. Many times postponed, due to the difficulties encountered by the transitionnal government to solve the slightest issue regarding to the reforms to lead, and due to the new political game involving the members of the former system, the historical opponents of the regime and the protestors and newcomer in politics afraid to see the revolution fail to fulfil its goal. Finally, the elections are to be hold on October 23rd.
The ISIE (Instance Supérieure Indépendante pour les Elections), managed by Kamel Jendoubi, is monitoring the elections to ensure a fair and transparent process, for the first ever free elections taking place in the History of Tunisia. The ISIE launched a few weeks ago a massive campaign to encourage Tunisians to get registred for the elections. Indeed, until now in Tunisia, the citizens were automatically receiving their voter’s card. The new system asks for potential electors to register in town halls and embassies in a period of time going from July 11th to August 2nd.
The ISIE were providing continuously estimates of the number of registration. Since the very first days, Tunisians did not seem to rush to get registres; the number were low. Less than 2% of Tunisian potential electors registred after the first week, about 25% at the end of the registration period. The ISIE decided to extend for two more weeks the registration period. Disappointing: Tunisians do not seem at all interested in voting.
How come a people that mobilized to topple a regime is indifferent to voting, one of the basic rights they asked for and fought for? Many explanations were given:
the lack of a “democratic culture”: full generations of Tunisians were never part of their own political system; they never were but spectators to this comedy the old regime was calling “democracy”, knowing what horrible truth lies behind the words. The idea of voting with effective result might be too new to most of the people to take the initiative to register and to chose a candidate. They might actually have made a choice but not dare to make it, fearing the reaction of the rulers, or maybe they do not get that their voice really make a difference.
the confusion with the old system: the old system did not require registering, thus a large part of Tunisians are not aware that registration is a necessery step.
the contradictory ISIE guidelines: dates change following you consult one source or the other, required documents to bring change, unclear specifications, etc. Tunisians, whose a great part never voted in their entire life, whose a substantial part is illetrate or two poor to be wired 24/7 for new updates may feel totally lost.
the contestation: the political game opposing the parties (PDP, enNahdha, etc), where every political leader tries to make coalitions to bring down others, where attacks and rumors hit every side, gives maybe the feeling to the Tunisian population that politicians do not have the interest of the people set as a priority, therefore incitating them to “boycott” the elections. The brutality with which the police breaks sit-ins and protests and the extent of the emergency state might well also contribute in unsecuring the citizen: why would they vote for building a new authoritarian state? Indeed, many of Tunisians often say that since the revolution “nothing has changed“.
Like in most complex situations, the answer is certainly made of all these different explanations. But there is still a last one has – sadly – to consider: maybe, Tunisians do not register, simply because they do not care about voting. The idea in itself seems a bit odd: why did they do a revolution in the first place if they did not care? Well, first, it does not take more than some part (say, 10 or 20%) of a population to carry on a revolution.This does not mean that the rest of the population do not agree with the idea of a revolution, but that they are not active in the process: they follow it, but from far. Then, given the fact that an authoritarian state cannot survive for 23years without not only by scaring the population, but also by growing in them the uninterest for political matters, a good proportion of the Tunisian population was always very indifferent to politics.
The propaganda is more than convincing about some one-sided truth, it is also about telling “take care of your own business, and we take care of our own“. In such a case, the whole background of the mediatic culture, of the society, of the teaching in schools can evolve into directing people to get interested and focused on secondary matters: consumerism, for example. People died to bring us the right to vote, but what can you do, voting is definetly not as funny as going to shopping, gossiping or watching sports on TV. From my personnal experience, sadly, I have to say that many of our compatriots fall in that category of citizens that have closed their sight to the very idea of participative citizenship. I think that getting rid of this mentality is the biggest challenge of the Revolution: and it will certainly not be achieved by the upcoming elections. If half of the generation of our children are educated to participative citizenship, it will already be an outstanding victory for Tunisia.
The IMF chief Dominique Stauss-Khan (DSK) sexual assault case has turned into a political hurricane in France. Much of the comments held by journalists and politicians were about being careful with any assertion given the fact DSK still benefits of the “présomption d’innocence“, without dismissing opinions about what impact on the French presidential election of 2012, what other person in DSK’s “parti socialiste” could be promoted as candidate at his place, what comes now for the IMF leadership.
Martine Aubry (head of Parti Socialiste), François Hollande (PS) or Ségolène Royal (PS); Roseline Bachelot (Minister), François Baroin (spokesman of the government); Frédéric Mitterand (the pedophile Minister of Culture), Daniel Cohn-Bendict (deputee, author of a manifesto on less constraints on sexuality between adults/children), Bernard-Henry Levy (essayist; the only one in the Universe who knows who killed Daniel Pearl and why exactly the pacifists on the flotilla for Gaza were worth killing): all comments saying again and again “présomption d’innocence”, attacks on how the NYPD treated discracefully their friend DSK, shared thoughts to his family (a wife continuously cheated by her husband since the beginning of their wedding and 4 children) and to DSK himself. They also, to more or less extent, all mentionned the possibility of a conspiracy against the IMF Chief. But no compassion with the presumed victim of the rape. In talking about a conspiracy, the cleaning lady changes her status from presumed victim to presumed accused. But after all… who cares about the cleaning lady anyway?
Of what we know, the presumed victim, Nafissatou Diallo, a 32 years old beautiful lady, ghanean, single mother of a teenager, works for 3 years now in the Sofitel, benefits from an excellent reputation, has no known affair, satisfies in both competence and behaviour her employer and colleagues, has a blank record, never skips attending to Mass… and didn’t even know who DSK was before this sunday. Not exactly the profile of a mastermind of a global conspiracy. But of course, you never know?
A presumed victim, a presumed accused denying, is that different of the millions and trillions of rape cases we see everyday? Is every presumed victim accused that way of conspiracy and every presumed accused pitied that way? I don’t think so… If the same amount of reactions would rise from French politicians and journalists everytime the “présemption d’innocence” is scorned in any case, one could feel satisfied with the fact that the french political scene is concerned with justice. But it is not the case. Justice is a concern only when it becomes political enough to get attention. Even the “blindness” of the justice is attacked, when commentators express their displeasure about how DSK was arrested and handcuffed like any other presumed rapist! Can you imagine, like any other! Still believing in the “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité“? I don’t.
In a few decades, History books will mention 2011 as the beginning of the so-called Arab Spring. So far, the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions may have not yet fully turned the two authoritarian states into democracies, but the first signs of democratization are encouraging. The outcome of the difficult phase through which Libya is passing is totally incertain; while the most optimist forecasts believe in a quiet transition by the National Transition Council in case Gaddafi forces are defeated, the most pessimist fear a long “Somalia-like” civil war. The Yemeni turmoil is weakening more and more Saleh regime and the Syrian protests are shaking Bashar Al-Assad inherited power more than ever did any of the political crisis the country has been through. The contamination to Iran and to sub-saharian African countries is often discussed by political analysts. North Africa and Middle-East changed for good, and with it global geopolitics. But what will History books say about year 2011 in Europe?
It might well be that 2011 will be remembered as the beginning of the end of democracy in Europe. What would have looked to be as a highly excentric assertion 5 years ago looks today more and more credible. The global financial crisis of 2008 has severely undermined the influence of Europe in the World, but also the sovereignty of European Nations and the social benefits of the European citizen. Instead of reinforcing the European economy, the Euro acted as a propagator of the deep crisis in Greece and Spain (among others) to the rest of Europe. In this context of local pauperization and global instability, withdrawal was the general reaction.
Until 2011, this withdrawal resulting in a radicalization of populations was thought to be a temporary trend, that would disappear once the effects of the crisis damped. But a recent event shows that on the contrary, it might be here to stay: for the first time since the end of the fall of the Berlin wall, an European nation included in its “genetical code” (its constitution) the seeds of real anti-democratic principles. Hungary (and not anymore the Republic of Hungary) adopted on April 18th a new constitution limiting the independance of justice and increasing powers of the head of the State.
Are we overreacting by considering that the Hungarian new constitution is the first palpable step towards the collapse of democracy in Europe? It may be too soon to know. Nevertheless, the “Hungarian scenario” might well be only the first of its kind, where the rise of the nationalist right wing party first influenced national and european politics, before to imprint the Constitution. Other countries dominated by similar nationalist eurosceptic parties such as Slovakia or Romania are not excluded from following the same path.
The “Scandinavian model” was long considered to be one of the most evolved forms of democracy and the quintessence of social democracy. The first crack of the model might well have happened when the populist “True Fins” party won 39 seats (19%) at the Finnish Parliament on April 17th elections. Finland is one of the strongest member nations of the European Union and the previously unseen success of this euro-sceptic party openly claiming they refuse the bailout to Portugal could be a real hindrance to European initiatives. What will happen to Europe the day the Euro-parliament will be full of euro-sceptics deputies?
The Hungarian case might well be the first regressive step in the internal governance of an European nation and the Finnish case the first one in the global governance inside the European Union. Optimists would say that Europe sad history throughout the 20th century will prevent totalitarism, as the consequences of this dramatic outcome is still extremely vivid in minds; Pessimists would just stick to the rough facts to conclude that what was unthinkable only a few years ago is already happening inside nations and inside Union. When more than a decade ago Austrian nationialist leader Jörg Haider (FPÖ) made his entry in the government, Austria seemed to be an isolated case; today, there is nothing unusual to the fact that right-wing leaders are in governments and parliaments. Majority of European citizen consider those parties as parties like any others.
Since the beginning of the economical crisis, the European ‘fortress’ denied more and more access to migrants from Africa and Asia and hardened the policies towards the existing European Muslim community. The fear of a negative anti-democratic impact of Islam is sweeping Europe from North to South and from East to West, ensuring the success of populist parties. So far Germany might well be the only European nation resisting more or less to the wave, but how long for? The radicalization even begins to disrupt national identities themselves, like we see in Belgium, with no government at its head since now one year, digging up the antagonism between Flemish and Welloon. The ‘worst case’ scenario might well be fulfilled if french presidential candidate Marine LePen is elected in 2012, because of France key influence in Europe.
If things keep going on this way, 2011 might well be remembered not only for the Arab Spring, but also for the European Winter.
