2024 Elections in Tunisia: Democratic Test Amid Controversy
On the evening of Monday, October 7, 2024,
candidate Kais Saied was declared the winner of a second presidential term in
Tunisia with 90.69 percent of the votes. However, the victory was marred with
widespread controversy over participation rates, the democracy and integrity of
the elections, their legal procedures, and potential repercussions on the
entire Tunisian political environment.
Opinions were divided over the recent
elections between those who considered them an opportunity for change and those
who saw them as a "spectacle" to renew the president's term and
bolster his regime's declining legitimacy. During this ongoing controversy,
most declared presidential candidates faced prosecution and imprisonment.
Several political figures and parties said it was impossible to pick a
president democratically under Saied's rule and called for a boycott of the
elections.
On April 6, 2024, Saied stated that he would
not accept the candidacy of groups that throw themselves into the arms of
foreign powers, as he called it. That month, the National Salvation Front, the
largest opposition coalition, announced that it would not participate, claiming
the "lack of competition rules." Conversely, the authorities claimed
that the elections had met the conditions of integrity, transparency, and fair
competition.
On July 19, 2024, Saied officially announced
his candidacy for the elections scheduled for October 6. On September 2, the
Independent High Authority for Elections approved the final list of candidates,
which included, in addition to Kais Saied, the head of the People’s Movement,
Zuhair al-Maghzawi, and the head of the Azimoun
movement, Ayachi Zemal.
The elections were held per the 2022
constitution drafted by Saied, in which he granted himself broad executive and
legislative powers and immunity from questioning and accountability while
reducing the powers of parliament and the judiciary. The Independent High
Authority for Elections was tasked with supervising the electoral process.
However, its mission had been limited to adjudicating cases of abuse of power
that contested administrative decisions. Its regulatory laws were later amended
(in 2014) to give it more independence and supremacy in its decisions,
especially in electoral disputes, which grant it jurisdiction over the
electoral process.
Four main issues can be highlighted in a
brief reading of the recent elections.
Restrictions on Political Work
The elections were held while 20 opponents
were arrested, including Rached Ghannouchi, the leader of the Ennahda Movement,
and Abir Moussi, the head of the Free Constitutional Party. They joined former
ministers, deputies, and businessmen detained on various charges, including
"conspiring against state security." Many opposition figures and
human rights activists have been placed under house arrest or banned from
traveling.
Restrictions on Election Monitoring
In a notable development, the Independent
Higher Commission for Elections (Elections Commission) rejected the
accreditation of several associations interested in monitoring the elections.
It said it was notified by authorities that these associations received
suspicious foreign funding and large sums of money. Some of those funds came
from countries that do not have diplomatic relations with Tunisia. A statement
by the Elections Commission stated that information about these associations
had been referred to the relevant authorities to take necessary actions.
Commission member Najla Al-Abrouqi also revealed that Ana Yaqeth organization and the Mourakiboun
monitoring association should be referred to the Public Prosecution on
charges of foreign funding. The two organizations enjoy credibility in election
monitoring among Tunisians and international organizations specialized in
democracy, human rights, and development, as they have played a role in
monitoring the various electoral stages that Tunisia has witnessed since 2011.
In response to the accusations, Ana
Yaqeth said the Elections Commission "is trying, by all means, to
exclude civil society organizations from observing the elections under flimsy
pretexts, reinforcing the absence of integrity in the electoral process."
Nevertheless, the law grants associations and
civil society organizations the right to monitor the elections and leaves the
accreditation conditions and procedures with the Elections Commission.
A Judicial-Administrative Dispute and
Questioning the Independence of the Elections Commission
The 2024 presidential elections saw a
challenge related to the lack of respect for the principles of the rule of law
and institutions, especially the separation of powers, the independence of the
judiciary, and, consequently, the right to a fair trial and justice in
implementing court decisions. It came against the backdrop of the ongoing
controversy between the Elections Commission and the Supreme Administrative
Court regarding the latter's decisions that the Commission ignored.
The Administrative Court had accepted the
appeals of three presidential candidates and decided to allow them to return to
the electoral race, thus canceling the Commission's decisions that had
dismissed them "without legal justification," as the three candidates
described it and as implicitly stated in the court’s decision. The court also
requested that the Commission reconsider the electoral calendar to allow them
to launch their campaign. However, the Elections Commission surprised observers
by refusing the Administrative Court's decision and continuing to exclude the
three candidates.
The Elections Commission's decision drew much
criticism from legal experts, human rights activists, political figures,
parties, and organizations. It was described as "arbitrary",
"exclusionary," and biased in favor of the current head of state. It
was accused of becoming a "tool of the executive authority," losing
its independence and thus its credibility. It was stripped of the neutrality
that it was known for since its establishment in 2011, during the first
genuinely multi-party elections in the country, following the January 14, 2011
revolution.
Amnesty International called on the Tunisian
authorities to put an end to the increasing repression of fundamental freedoms.
It said in a statement that the escalation in arbitrary arrests of opposition
politicians, marginalization of candidates, and violation of judicial decisions
is a cause for concern and suspicion. It continued that criminal charges are
often used to silence opposition voices, while the media and non-governmental
organizations are strictly restricted as a means of gagging and spreading fear
among regime opponents. Amnesty International in Tunisia condemned the
Elections Commission's refusal to comply with judicial decisions that reinstate
some presidential candidates, which represented a new blow to the independence
of the judiciary and the rule of law.
The political and public environment expected
the Elections Commission to reverse its decision to ensure the election's
transparency and integrity. However, the latter insisted on its position. Its
president, Farouk Bouasker, announced again the continued exclusion of the
three candidates: Imad Daimi, Mondher Zenaidi, and Abdel Latif Mekki. He
accused the Administrative Court of violating legal procedures, which the court
categorically denied by presenting documents confirming the integrity of its
methods and steps per the law and the penal code regulating the court's work
and its jurisdiction.
Regardless of the controversy between the two
institutions, the three candidates were ultimately excluded, keeping the three
they had previously accepted: President Kais Saied, Zuhair Maghzaoui
(Secretary-General of the People's Movement), and Al-Ayachi Al-Zammal (Head of
the Azimoun Movement), who was
imprisoned pending trial for the "crimes of forging popular
endorsements," according to the authorities' accusations.
The executive authority rushed to publish the
commission's decision in the Official Gazette of the Tunisian Republic to cut
off any hope of going back, as President Saied kept repeating. The executive
authority even provided the Elections Commission with a shipment of electoral
ink and "safe bags" for ballot papers. In a registered letter, it
stated that the matter of the three candidates whose candidacy it insisted on
dropping had been irrevocably resolved and that the Elections Commission's choice
was sound and logical, in the authority's estimation.
Low turnout
The Elections Commission announced that
2,808,548 votes were cast, equivalent to 28.8 percent of the total registered
voters of 9,753,217. The rate is much lower than in the presidential elections
in 2014 (64 percent) and 2019 (45 percent).
Was it a democratic stage?
Based on the international principles and
standards for free and fair elections adopted by electoral democracy networks
and based on the conclusions reached after monitoring the political process,
which included President Kais Saied, elected in 2019, granting himself
exceptional powers in July 2021, claiming that they were necessary to deal with
the governance crisis. He proceeded to suspend articles of the 2014
constitution, dissolve parliament, and organize a referendum to amend the
constitution. After its approval with a low turnout, the referendum canceled
the most significant reform gains and was a setback in the democratic process.
The authorities also took a series of repressive measures against opponents.
Political figures, parties, and organizations faced house arrest, travel bans,
and prosecution for public criticism of the president or the authorities. The
police forces often used excessive force against demonstrators.
In conclusion, the presidential elections
held on October 6 violated international standards for democracy and elections.
Thus, they did not adhere to the principles and foundations that lead to a
genuine and correct representation of the citizens' wills.
Since 2021, Tunisians have rejected Saied's
measures ten years after the end of the dictatorship in 2011, which led to a
monopoly of power and its concentration in the hands of one man.
The rejection was evident in the reluctance
of more than 90 percent to participate in previous elections, the
constitutional referendum, parliamentary elections, and local elections. More
than 70 percent did not vote in the presidential elections. Moreover, there are
questions regarding the participation rate due to the delay in issuing the
final results. Some "observers" believe that the rates may have been
manipulated, that they point to disappointment with the political path that has
turned against democratic reforms, and that this has led to questioning the
legitimacy of the regime and a lack of confidence in the ruling system.
Consequently, elections must be based on international standards of freedom, integrity, justice, transparency, and equal opportunities. They need to respect the principle of separation of powers and implement judicial rulings issued by the Administrative Court, as this constitutes respect for the principle of equal opportunities and the application of electoral democratic standards.
Recent publications
