Tunisia, which exported revolution, does not import coups

In Tunisia, where three years ago the spark was struck that began the process called the Arab Spring and that affected all Arab countries, the long-running constitutional negotiations recently ended at last with a consensus and with a constitutional text being adopted in parliament by a high margin. With the adoption of the constitution in parliament, the sight of representatives of all parties celebrating the event by embracing one another was a scene worth seeing.

This happy end to the constitutional process, adopted with the votes of 200 deputies in the 217-seat parliament, was not reached easily. Just as in Egypt, from the moment the Nahda movement came to power by taking the great majority of votes, familiar fears and conspiracies were set in motion. Even before it took office, the Nahda movement was criticized for becoming a dictator and for taking on the governance of the country alone, without sharing it with anyone.

Yet from the very beginning Nahda, though it had no need to, preferred to form a broad coalition and made as many concessions as possible. Rashid al-Ghannushi, the wise leader of Nahda and indisputably one of the most important names of contemporary Islamic political philosophy, though he could easily have become president himself, renounced this and, with his own support, backed the election of Moncef Marzouki, a human rights activist, as president. He himself stayed away from government, but this distance did not prevent him from being influential over the formation and actions of the government. Although he held no official post, Ghannushi continued to be decisive at the center of all the debates concerning the formation or dissolution of governments, the election of the president and the drafting of the constitution.

In contrast to this conciliatory attitude displayed by Ghannushi and Nahda, what the opposition demanded with a smaller share of representation strained the limits of reasonableness considerably. Of course, the opposition was not limited to the unreasonable theses it put forward in political debates. Political assassinations were carried out, and from the very first minutes of these murders it was sought to hold Nahda responsible.

Even though Nahda too condemned them strongly from the very first minute, Tunisia's streets became the scene of protests, on account of these murders, in which Nahda was held responsible, with claims that the country was besieged by Islamist terror. At the same time, in Egypt, that is, in Egypt which had started its revolution on 25 January 2011 under Tunisia's influence, similar processes were part of intrigues to reverse the Arab Spring that would end in a coup.

The coup attempt that took place in Egypt on 3 July gave some people in Tunisia hope and set them in motion, and the world's silence against this coup emboldened them, but what happens in one place does not always show that the same can be more easily repeated elsewhere. On the contrary, what happened in Egypt became a solid lesson for those in Tunisia.

Saying "We exported revolution to Egypt, and we have no intention whatsoever of importing a coup from there," Ghannushi pursued an extraordinarily successful politics of consensus in Tunisia. On the contrary, Tunisia, which was the source of the Arab awakening, produced, with the deliberative democracy practice it put forward, a very solid model, probably for countries like Egypt and Syria that quickly showed a tendency to deviate from this line.

Thus Tunisia has already formed a very good answer for those who argue, on the example of Egypt and Syria, that the Arab Revolution was untimely and failed. Nahda, which takes Islamic references into account, has produced a very important practice, one worth taking as a reference, regarding the possible limits of Islamic politics in a country like Turkey, whose overwhelming majority is Muslim and which may hold different understandings of Islam.

In response to the expectation of the more radical Islamists for a reference to the Sharia in the constitution, Nahda thought it unnecessary to insist on this. Because it was necessary to find a line that could be agreed on in a constitution to be drawn up together with those holding different approaches to the perception or acceptance of the Sharia. This line stipulates that, even if the Sharia is not the source of legislation, care be taken that the laws to be enacted do not contradict Islam. In fact, when one proceeds from the principle that the original status of things is permissibility, it is understood that all legislation that does not contradict Islam will, by definition, be in conformity with Islam.

The Nahda movement, which put forward this reasoning like an ijtihad, withdrew from government, also taking into account the opposition's insistence, but continued to play a role in determining the cabinet that was formed. This conciliatory and self-sacrificing stance on the one hand earned it great respect, and on the other, interestingly, increased its effectiveness in government even more, albeit indirectly.

From whichever angle one looks, the spring season in Tunisia continues with new waves.

The political line of Nahda and its wise leader Ghannushi presents a new exemplar to be taken as a reference for both democracy and Islamic politics.