Tunisia: an experience of "deliberative democracy"?

In the days when it is celebrating the 8th Anniversary of its Revolution, Tunisia has left behind yet another attempt aimed at stealing its revolution from it. This attempt was one that, through a general strike by leftist unions and using the high cost of living as a pretext, tried to engrave in the people's minds the message that after 8 years none of the Revolution's goals had been realized, and invited them to bring down the government. It remained a failed attempt. Because among the people there is almost no doubt that its purpose is a new attempt to steal the Revolution. It is of course expected that these attempts will continue.

In fact, despite all the difficulties being experienced, the Tunisian people currently hold an invaluable treasure: democracy and freedom. There is a high awareness that this is the most basic condition for overcoming all problems.

It is a plain fact that Tunisia put forward a very successful experience in keeping the revolution on track against all the pirates of the revolution during the Arab Spring process. It is also known that Raşid Gannuşi's wise management of the process played a very great role in producing this experience, which has turned into a model. We had also said that his style of politics has created a model that will be the subject of doctoral theses and research, and that much has been done on this. Dr. Ahmet Gökçen of Muş Alparslan University's thesis titled "Nahda as a Social Movement" is the one that comes to my mind first.

Gannuşi is without doubt a thinker-politician who has been able to unite theoretical approaches with practice within contemporary Islamic political thought. He puts practice forward as an application of his theories and, nourishing his theories from his practice, opens a new era in Islamic political thought. He does not fit at all the kind of cliché typologies that some Orientalists might attribute to Islamists. Because he does not fit, he surprises greatly with his speeches and his discourse. He says democracy, he says secularism, for example. He does not shy away from using concepts that will perhaps be very surprising not only to Orientalists but also to some Islamists, and that some even fly into a rage over. The interesting side of the matter is that both the Orientalists and those so-called Islamists who hear these concepts agree in seeing Gannuşi as having "deviated" from the Islam or Islamism that they know.

Yet Gannuşi has a discourse that is extremely sound and consistent in itself. When he says democracy, he is never speaking of a tool that he will resort to until he crosses the bridge. Nor is he speaking, with this, of an anachronistic application of the Islamic Shura practice in the classical sense.

Of course Shura gives him direction as a value and principle, as it does every Muslim. But he knows very well that its applications over time could be very different. He settles on the view that in our day this ideal is quite possible within the form of democracy.

In the same way, Gannuşi does not hold back from speaking of secularism too as a principle that can be agreed upon, provided that it is understood not as enmity to religion but as freedom of religion and conscience. As a Muslim, in a political negotiation in which he takes part with parties who hold different values and approaches, he can reconcile this with reference to the maxims "there is no compulsion in religion" or "to each his own religion": let the other parties call it "secularism" if they like! In the end no one or group is alone in a society, and what is essential is to reach agreement on a society in which everyone will live together, in peace, ensuring freedom. That people approach certain shared values with different interpretations is in the nature of political hermeneutics. In the end Tunisia is made up of different people, and Tunisia belongs to all Tunisians, even if they differ.

There are indeed those in the country who perceive secularism almost as an exclusionary and absolutely dominant religion. In their vision of society there is room for no one but those like themselves. For such people, who are disturbed by every kind of social or public manifestation of religion, democracy is really too broad. They have no tolerance for Nahda, however socially widespread it may be and however conciliatory.

Despite the noise of these segments, who continue to worry although Nahda, which has in one way or another been a partner in power for 8 years, has not shown the slightest behavior that would justify their worries, and whose voices come out much louder than their strength with these worries, the political patience and tolerance that Gannuşi has shown is also admirable.

In fact, there was a concept of "deliberative democracy" that liberal democrats talked about in the nineties. A proper application of this concept has not been seen in any democratic experience. In political practice, the parties' preferring conflict, hostility and tripping one another up rather than deliberation is the more common example. Even so, the practice Gannuşi has put forward in Tunisia since the Revolution may perhaps be a more interesting example precisely in terms of this deliberative democracy theory. Because he really put forward an approach that, under no condition, steps back from taking part in deliberation or from calling for deliberation, and does not allow the deliberation table to be overturned.

But with this he also showed how important it is that at least one of the parties in this deliberation sometimes behaves with more self-sacrifice than necessary. Because the most conspicuous feature of this process is the renunciations and sacrifices he displayed for the sake of the continuation of the deliberation.

From the very beginning, although he could have been a presidential candidate and his chance of winning was also high, saying it was not worth the tension this would create, he withdrew in both elections. Later, although he had a majority in parliament, he agreed to less cabinet weight than he had in order to form governments. This conciliatory attitude has made him, as a mediator in every government or political crisis, the country's most respected political figure, accepted by everyone.

It can be expected that the sacrifice he has shown in order to continue the deliberation has caused a bitterness among his own supporters and, since they are forced to settle for less than they deserve, a relative discontent.

Yet by this means Gannuşi in fact ensured that the country, after 8 years, stays on a line on which it is walking with sure steps toward a democratic, stable and free future.

Even if a debate on deliberative democracy is to be held, there are many lessons from now on that can be drawn from the Tunisian model and, of course, in this model, from the example of Gannuşi.