Tunisia's Political Scene is about to Change

The political scene in Tunisia is heading towards many shifts and the indicators on that are many. The announcement of a "positive development" in the president's connection with both the parliament and the government is expected to accelerate these shifts and put an end to over two years of tension and exchange of accusations.

Although Abir Moussi, president of the Free Destourian Party and some of her allies in the opposition, have ascended their criticism of the parliamentary and political ruling majority, the behind-the-scene actions suggest "new agreements" that could lead to a "political government" more open on the opposition, syndicates, and independent experts. The first indicators on the "upcoming change" surfaced when the fighting political parties and syndicates ascended their verbal attack against the president, speaker, and prime minister, in conjunction with "high profile" meetings that discussed possible solutions for the crisis. These solutions start with the formation of a government that replaces the current one including 11 ministers rejected by Kais Saied.

Perhaps the most serious escalation since Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was toppled, in early 2011, is that the labor syndicates, mainly the Tunisian General Labor Union, which plays a major political role in the country, has called for early presidential and parliamentary elections, removal of the president, speaker, and prime minister, and "to return the rule to the people."

The three presidencies didn't comment on these calls despite the campaign launched by local and international media outlets covering what they considered "a first" in the history of syndicates calling for the resignation of the president and the speaker.

Meanwhile, many political parties have warned from clashes among the syndical leadership and the three presidents following the intense criticisms launched by top figures in the Tunisian General Labor Union.

On the other hand, leaders of opposition parties, including the People's Movement, Destourian, Constitutional Liberal, and the Democratic Current, have welcomed the calls for "early elections."

Fathi al-Ayadi, spokesperson to Ennahda Movement (Islamic party) said his party is "ready for early elections."

Popular Referendum

Many constitutional law experts like Academic Kamal bin Massoud and former law school dean Rafe' bin Ashour ruled out the option of the early election without "political consensus" that amends the constitution and electoral law. According to the two experts, the current Tunisian constitution does not allow any political authority, including the president or the parliament, to cancel the results of the 2019 elections and call for early ones.

For her part, legal expert Mona Karim said the constitution allows the president to suspend the parliament, and call for early elections in "rare cases like when the prime minister-designate fails to win the support of the parliamentary majority two times in a row."

Former minister and official at the People's Movement opposition party Fathi Belhaj, and Spokesperson to Ennahda Movement, MP Fathi al-Ayadi saw that "organizing early elections before amending the electoral law would lead to the same political scene."

Therefore, a number of political activists including former ministers Mohsen Marzouk, Kamel Jendoubi, and former head of the bar association Shawki Taieb have called for "a popular referendum" to change the political system from parliamentary to presidential. Some former left-wing activists have also launched the "Resistance" initiative aimed at collecting tens of thousands of signatures supporting the "popular referendum."

- Presidency for life?

Most of the ruling and opposing figures, including the leader of the Popular Front Hamma Hammami, and former minister Rafiq Abdul- Salam have clearly opposed a proposal attributed to the president and his supporters to organize a "popular referendum" on suspending the "revolution constitution 2014" and readopting the constitution of 1959, which was criticized by most politicians since 2011. They also accused him of "legitimizing tyranny, one-man rule, and the presidency for life."

Secretary-General of the General Labor Union Noureddine Taboubi revealed that Saied is considering "preparing a referendum to readopt the constitution of 1959," because, according to the president, the new constitution "limited the powers of the president and emphasized authority overlap with the prime minister and the parliament."

The official presidency site posted photos and videos of Kais Saied's meeting with former MP and activist Mubarka Brahmi, showing him holding pages from the ruling party's Labor newspaper in 1959 that praise statements by President Habib Bourguiba on the constitution of June 1959. These photos and news stirred more criticisms of the president and some of his advisors, accusing them of "waiving the democratic achievements in the 2014 constitution."

However, some constitutional law experts, including Academic and International Law expert Haikal bin Mahfouz called for "saving the country from its political crisis, and power conflict through an advisory referendum."

In an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, Bin Mahfouz said: "The constitution of 2014 allows popular referendums in cases related to human rights, but doesn't prohibit the president from calling for an advisory referendum on a partial adjustment of the political system [...] the advisory referendum is not binding but can help decision-makers address problems, and save the country from this useless political circle."

- Powers of the president

On the other hand, many have recently called for expanding the president's powers over the parliament and the government.

These calls were launched before 2011 by Al-Sadiq Sha'ban and Béchir Tekkari, ministers of justice and education back then, who believed that the current constitution allows the president to announce emergency measures when the national security is in danger. These measures include exceptional legal procedures that expand his powers and limit the role of the parliament and the government affected by political conflicts, and partisan and personal disputes.

He recently met with the President in Carthage Palace, and called for "respecting the presidency and expanding its powers to save the country."

Zeitoun had also announced a similar position when conflicts erupted between late President Beji Caid Essebsi and Prime Minister Youssef Chahed, who allied with Ennahda Movement at the time. Zeitoun was among few members in Ennahda to support the presidential palace in its dispute with Chahed and his government.

- Mediations…and a Deal

In line with the fiery statements and calls in the syndical and political speeches, official sources from several parties and decision-making circles confirmed that Tunisia is approaching a new phase of "political agreement" that starts by ending the disputes between the presidency and the parliament, and between the President and Rached Ghannouchi.

The change path has kicked off after revealing the dialogue and political negotiations the president carried out with several diplomatic and political figures including Lotfi Zeitoun, and his old friend and former left leader Ridha Chiheb el-Mekki known as "Reda Lenin." Few days after the announcement, Saied had a first-of-its-kind, one hour and a half meeting with Speaker Rached Ghannouchi, the historic leader of the Ennahda Movement.

Many sources confirmed that this meeting led to a "comprehensive agreement" on addressing the current political crisis, which might include the announcement of a major government modification that excludes the ministers objected by Saied because of "corruption suspicions" six months ago."

- Collapse of "Political Belt?"

Meanwhile, two leaders from the Heart of Tunisia party, including MP Osama al-Khalifi criticized the approach between the speaker and the President and his allies, members of the Democratic Block in the parliament.

MPs from the "political and parliamentary belt" warned the government that the ruling coalition could weaken in case Ghannouchi and Ennahda leadership "imply" they might dismiss current PM Hichem Mechichi, who is supported by tens of MPs from the parties that formed the ruling Constitutional Democratic Rally in 2011.

Following the release of Businessman Nabil al-Qarawi, leader of Heart of Tunisia party who rivaled Kais Saied in the final round of the 2019 elections, calls have risen to form a "new political coalition" that includes the so-called "modernists and liberals" facing "Islamist" opponents, MPs of Ennahda and Al Karama coalition. If formed, this "coalition" could lead to a government headed by Mechichi and supported by Abir Moussi's Destourian Party, and may even win the support of the Presidential Palace. This government could pledge to close the financial and judicial cases that led to the arrest of Qarawi and temporarily seized his properties and assets in 2019 and 2020.

However, optimistic remarks stated by figures known as "extremists" like former health minister and Ennahda VP Abdellatif Mekki, came in line with the resumptions of political discussions. Again, Tunisia has found itself in "a closed circle" with no progress, said journalist and Academic Mounji Mabrouki. The situation is about to get more complicated, after political groups supported by the "extreme left" joined the clash, and resumed their accusations of the Ennahda Movement of partaking in violence and terrorism acts, including the assassination of the left opposition members Chokri Belaïd and Mohamed Brahmi in 2013.

In a recent press conference, Lawyer Reda Radawi, member of the board defending Belaïd and Brahmi, implied that he and his colleagues "would reveal names of judges and high-profile officials who were involved in cases of violence and terrorism in the 10 past years," including many figures in Ennahda government presided by Hamadi Jebali and Ali al-Arid in 2012-2013.

Meanwhile, feminist and legal associations supporting the left parties have launched a media campaign against what they call "fundamentalists," and "extremists," accusing them of violating women's rights, and harassing Leader of the Destourian Party Abir Moussi and her colleagues.

Other associations and parties have organized movements that call to topple Meshishi's government, the parliament, and the whole ruling class brought by the 2019 elections. They have encouraged "youth demonstrations," and "manifestations in popular areas," against the increase of prices, inflation, unemployment, poverty, and crimes. According to those groups, the current crises are the results of "politicians' failures," social and economic effects of the pandemic, in addition to the government's emergency decision to close the borders, and the lockdown that affected many sectors such as tourism, traditional industries, and services.

In all cases, the political scene in Tunisia is active these days; some parties push towards supporting the current parliamentary political coalition through conciliation with the Carthage Palace (the president) and some with opposition parties. Others seek to cause a "shock" inside this coalition to pave the road for new coalitions that could shake the upcoming presidential and parliamentary elections, whether organized on time in 2024 or earlier during 2022.

India and Pakistan have fought three full-scale wars since they gained independence from Britain in 1947. They’ve also had dozens of skirmishes and conflicts, including one atop a glacier dubbed the coldest and highest-altitude battlefield in the world.

The latest escalation follows a deadly gun attack on tourists that India blames Pakistan for — Islamabad denies any connection. But they don’t fight wars like other countries.

The dominant factor is their nuclear weapons arsenal, a distinct way of deterring major attacks and a guarantee that fighting doesn’t get out of hand, even when the situation is spiraling.

Here’s how — and why — India and Pakistan fight the way they do:

Their nuclear arsenals can destroy each other “Pakistan and India have enough nuclear weapons to wipe the other side out several times over,” says security analyst Syed Mohammed Ali, who is based in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital. “Their nuclear weapons create a scenario for mutually assured destruction.”

Both countries have “deliberately developed” the size and range of their stockpile to remind the other about the guarantee of mutually assured destruction, he adds.

Neither country discloses their nuclear capabilities but each is thought to have between 170 and 180 warheads that are short-, long- and medium-range. Both countries have different delivery systems — ways of launching and propelling these weapons to their targets.

The arsenals are a defensive move to prevent and deter further fighting, because “neither side can afford to initiate such a war or hope to achieve anything from it,” Ali says.

It might not look this way to the outsider, but nuclear weapons are a reminder to the other side that they can't take things too far.

But the secrecy around their arsenals means that it's unclear if Pakistan or India can survive a first nuclear strike and retaliate, something called “second-strike capability.”

This capacity stops an opponent from attempting to win a nuclear war through a first strike by preventing aggression that could lead to nuclear escalation.

Without this capability, there is, in theory, nothing to stop one side from launching a warhead at the other.

Kashmir at the crux of the dispute India and Pakistan have each laid claim to Kashmir since 1947, when both gained independence, and border skirmishes have created instability in the region for decades. Each country controls a part of Kashmir, which is divided by a heavily militarized border.

The two archrivals have also fought two of their three wars over Kashmir — a disputed Himalayan region divided between the them where armed insurgents resist Indian rule. Many Muslim Kashmiris support the rebels’ goal of uniting the territory, either under Pakistani rule or as an independent country.

Border flare-ups and militant attacks in India-controlled Kashmir have prompted New Delhi to take an increasingly tough position on Islamabad, accusing it of “terrorism.”

In the latest conflict, India punished Pakistan by hitting what it said were sites used by Pakistan-backed militants linked to a gun massacre last month.

A conventional military imbalance India is one of the biggest defense spenders in the world, with $74.4 billion in 2025, according to the Military Balance report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies. It’s also one of the world’s largest arms importers.

Pakistan is no slouch, spending $10 billion last year, but it can never match India’s deep pockets. India also has more than double the number of active armed forces personnel than Pakistan does.

While India’s armed forces are traditionally focused on Pakistan, it has another nuclear neighbor to contend with, China, and it is increasingly concerned with maritime security in the Indian Ocean. Those are two factors that Pakistan doesn’t have to consider in its security paradigm.

Pakistan's long and narrow shape, together with the outsized role of the military in foreign policy, makes it easier to move the armed forces around and prioritize defense.

A pattern of escalation and defusing Neither Pakistan or India are in a hurry to announce their military moves against the other and, as seen in the current flare-up of hostilities, it can take a while for confirmation of strikes and retaliation to surface.

But both launch operations into territories and airspace controlled by the other. Sometimes these are intended to damage checkpoints, installations, or sites allegedly used by militants.

They are also aimed at embarrassing or provoking — forcing leaders to bow to public pressure and respond, with the potential for miscalculation.

Many of these activities originate along the Line of Control, which divides Kashmir between India and Pakistan. It's largely inaccessible to the media and public, making it hard to independently verify claims of an attack or retaliation.

Such incidents raise international alarm, because both countries have nuclear capabilities, forcing attention back to India and Pakistan and, eventually, their competing claims over Kashmir.

The fear of nuclear war has put the two countries at the top of the agenda, competing with the papal conclave, US President Donald Trump’s policies, and the Sean “Diddy” Combs trial in the news cycle.

No desire for conquest, influence or resources Pakistan and India’s battles and skirmishes are away from the public eye.

Strikes and retaliation are late at night or early in the morning and, with the exception of the drone attacks on Thursday, they mostly take place away from densely populated urban centers. It shows that neither country has the desire to significantly harm the other’s population. Attacks are either described as surgical or limited.

Neither country is motivated by competition for resources. Pakistan has huge mineral wealth, but India isn't interested in these and, while there are stark ideological differences between Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan, they don’t seek control or influence over the other.

Other than Kashmir, they have no interest in claiming the other’s territory or exercising dominance.

Tunisia's Political Scene is about to Change