Tunisia rejects shariah in new constitution

[bobalot]

Tunisia constitution 'will not be based on Islamic law'

AFP - Tunisia's governing Islamist party has said it will not support making sharia, or Islamic law, the main source of legislation in a new constitution and will maintain the secular nature of the state.

Ennahda's stance on an issue that has increasingly polarised the country since its January 2011 revolution was criticised by hardline Islamists who wanted full-blown sharia, but welcomed by secular parties.

Ennahda, which emerged as the biggest party in Tunisia's first democratic elections last year, said Monday it would keep the first article of the 1956 constitution in the new basic law now being drafted.

The article enshrines the separation of religion and state, stating that: "Tunisia is a free, independent and sovereign state, its religion is Islam, its language is Arabic and it is a republic."

"We are not going to use the law to impose religion," Ennahda leader Rached Ghannouchi told journalists after the moderate Islamist party's constituent committee voted to maintain the constitutional article by 52 votes to 12.

The article, he added, "is the object of consensus among all sectors of society; preserving Tunisia's Arab-Muslim identity while also guaranteeing the principles of a democratic and secular state."

Islam is Tunisia's official religion and while the constitution stipulates the president should be a Muslim, the state is mostly secular.

Some had voiced concern that Ennahda would seek to curb women's rights and other liberties in an Arab country known for its progressive laws.

But Ghannouchi said the Islamist party would not "introduce ambiguous definitions into the constitution that risk dividing the people", adding that "many Tunisians do not have a clear image of sharia and erroneous practices in certain countries have aroused fear."

The statement has angered Tunisia's ultra-conservative Salafists, who have been pushing for sharia to be recognised as the main source of law.

At least 8,000 hardline Islamists staged a demonstration in central Tunis on Sunday to press their demands, and Ennahda's stance came as a disappointment.

"This is a betrayal of all those who voted for this party ... and the principles of the Islamist movement," Hechmi Haamdi of the hardline Islamist Al-Arydha movement told AFP.

Progressive Democratic Party member Meher Hanin, however, said the announcement had "lifted the ambiguity" on sharia's place in the law.

"This will allow us to advance in the writing of the constitution," said Hanin, whose party is in parliamentary opposition.

"Ennahda has made clear declarations; the secular character of the state is maintained. Now it must honour those commitments," he added.

Political analyst Slah Jourchi explained the move by saying Ennahda "did not want to divide Tunisians in this very delicate period".

Mohamed Bennour, spokesman of Ennahda's governing coalition partner Ettakatol, agreed that the Islamist party's decision bolstered national unity.

"We hope they will suit actions to words," he said.

Welcoming Ennahda's stance, Abdeljawed Jouneidi of the centre-left Ettajdid opposition party stressed the need for the ideal to be given practical effect.

"Ghannouchi wanted to appease public opinion and call the extremists to order, but we need actions" and an end to intolerance on the ground, he said.

Jouneidi cited anti-Semitic slogans chanted at Sunday's pro-sharia protest, urging the government to "punish such hate speech".

In his statement Monday, Ghannouchi sought to give assurances that Ennahda would defend "all minorities".

Ghannouchi, an Ennahda founding member, had in the 1970s called for strict application of sharia in Tunisia to restore order in a society he said had become depraved.

But he has toned down his discourse in recent years.

A Muslim majority of more than 90 percent has lived peacefully for years with religious minorities in Tunisia, including Jews.

Source

So much for the hyperventilation by some over an Islamist takeover in Tunisia.

[SpaceMarine93]

Well that's one piece of good news. But the hardline Islamists and Salafists ain't going to give up yet. I wonder what are Tunisia's chances of descending into an Iran style theocracy?

[Rabid]

Really slim at the moment : Tunisia has been a secular country since its independence, and unless the Salafists manage a takeover of some sort (not necessarily violent, mind you), they remain a minority.
They may influence the political discourse, but I doubt they have what it takes to really push the country toward radicalization.

[TimothyC]

This looks good, and like I said I would, I admit that I wrong.

[Simon_Jester]

Well that's one piece of good news. But the hardline Islamists and Salafists ain't going to give up yet. I wonder what are Tunisia's chances of descending into an Iran style theocracy?

You are aware that such things do not normally happen without the consent of the people in the society, right?

Theocratic states survive because the public accepts the legitimacy of the theocrats, not by terror tactics. To take examples:

-In Afghanistan, the Taliban took over largely by ending a civil war. They came into power in a part of the country that was in the process of descending into rule by random bandit-warlords. And most of the people in the country decided that rule by the Taliban was better than rule by a bunch of Mad Max apocalyptic warlord-assholes. Women might have to wear burqas and stay inside all day, but they were less likely to be raped by random goons. Men had to sit down and shut up while AK-47 toting guys told them to pray a lot, but they were less likely to be randomly robbed or killed trying to make an honest living. Interestingly, the regions where the Taliban had the most trouble establishing control (the north) are also the regions where the local militias and factions in the civil war had been doing the best job of enforcing law and order.

-In Saudi Arabia, there is a long history, going back roughly 300 years, of purist "Wahhabist" Sunni Islam. The house of Saud, which rules the country (hence "Saudi") has been affiliated with the Wahhabists for about that length of time- indeed, it was their association with Wahhab that turned them from a random clan living on a diet of rocks and camels in the middle of the desert into a powerful dynasty that became powerful enough to beat the Ottoman Empire (twice), take control of Mecca (twice), and secure foreign imperialist backing for their total domination of the Arabian peninsula (twice). So the kings like the Wahhabis. And the people... tolerate them. Because Arabia is the heart of Islam, the place where it most successfully overwrote the pre-existing culture. Someone who struts up and down parading their more-Muslim-than-you status (as the Wahhabis sort of do) is very hard to argue with, for a lot of Saudis. So even if they have reservations over the whole "women aren't allowed to drive" thing, they mostly keep their heads down. There is consent, because there is history.

-In Iran, well, to make a long story short, Iranian monarchs have been a bunch of worthless jackasses from some time in the 1700s up through 1979. For most of that time, foreigners were using the Iranian shahs as bought-and-paid-for sock puppets. And it was the theocrats who had the biggest hand in overthrowing the monarchy. So they get a big boost to their popularity and legitimacy, which they constantly reinforce by beating the drum about how great they are for standing up to foreigners.

None of these things happen without the consent of the people. Which means that if a basically democratic government in an Islamic country tells you that they're not going to enact a fundie religious code, they are probably right.

[Omega18]

To further emphasize how Tunisia becoming an Islamist theocracy is clearly not going to happen anytime soon if even Ennahda is not on board, you can take a look at the actual results of the 2011 Tunisian Assembly election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Tunisia

The point is that Ennahda at just over 37% is the ONLY even remotely politically significant potentially politically Islamic inclined party. Everyone else is either clearly supporting the separation of church and state, or blatantly secular. (I.E. the Tunisian Worker's Communist Party is not about to embrace adopting sharia law!)

While its true that there were undoubtedly individuals supporting Ennahda who were hoping for sharia law to be adopted, this outcome should have been by no means a surprise. Ennahda was very clear in emphasizing during the election that it was a moderate Islamist party, and its candidate list included professional working women who do not wear veils or even hijabs in public, with some of these individuals being prominent campaigners.

In other words, its extremely clear that those who would support a radical islamist theocracy taking over the country would be a quite limited minority, making such an outcome basically impossible.

[Skgoa]

Just out of curiosity: has anyone invented an "Al-Qaida in Tunisia", yet? Or is the new government sufficiently pro-west?

[Simon_Jester]

Skgoa, if there is such a thing as an American Nazi Party, what in Heaven's name makes you think foreigners would need to invent "Al Qaeda in Tunisia?" There's always some pathetic, miniscule political minority that will believe absolutely anything, no matter how loathsome. You don't need to 'invent' extremist parties; they form themselves even when they're far too small to ever have any political impact.

Foreigners may blow it far out of proportion, but that doesn't mean they're making up the existence of the party/group/organization/whatever in the first place.

[Rabid]

Just out of curiosity: has anyone invented an "Al-Qaida in Tunisia", yet? Or is the new government sufficiently pro-west?

There's already "Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb" (AQIM), so there's no need to invent a particular branch for Tunisia (which is part of the Maghreb's countries).

[CaptainChewbacca]

I heard on the radio today Egypt is similarly rejecting Shariah and hardline islam in its new government, so this is all very promising.

[Rabid]

There will be setbacks, and many will fall pursuing a goal greater than themselves.
But History is marching on, relentless, unstopping.
The Revolution has only begun.

[/feeling a bit lyrical]

[Bernkastel]

This is delightful news. I must admit that, when the fears of the rise of fundamentalists in the place of the dictators appeared, I was scared myself. But I was wrong and I am very happy about that.

[Skgoa]

Just out of curiosity: has anyone invented an "Al-Qaida in Tunisia", yet? Or is the new government sufficiently pro-west?

There's already "Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb" (AQIM), so there's no need to invent a particular branch for Tunisia (which is part of the Maghreb's countries).

From your link:

Allegations of GSPC links to al-Qaeda predate the September 11, 2001 attacks. As followers of a Qutbist strand of jihadist Salafism, the members of the GSPC are thought to share al-Qaeda's general ideological outlook. After the deposition of Hassan Hattab, various leaders of the group pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda. Some observers have argued that the GSPC's connection to al-Qaeda is merely opportunistic, not operational. Claims of GSPC activities in Italy[18] are disputed by other sources, who say that there is no evidence of any engagement in terrorist activities against US, European or Israeli targets: "While the GSPC ... established support networks in Europe and elsewhere, these have been limited to ancillary functions (logistics, fund-raising, propaganda), not acts of terrorism or other violence outside Algeria."[2] Investigations in France and Britain have concluded that young Algerian immigrants sympathetic to the GSPC or al-Qaeda have taken up the name without any real connection to either group.[3]

Similar claims of links between the GSPC and Abu Musab Al Zarqawi in Iraq[19] are based on purported letters to Zarqawi by GSPC leader Abu Musab Abdel Wadoud.[20] In a September 2005 interview, Wadoud hailed Zarqawi's actions in Iraq.[6] Like the GSPC's earlier public claims of allegiance to al-Qaeda, they are thought to be opportunistic legitimisation efforts of the GSPC's leaders due to the lack of representation in Algeria's political sphere.

[Rabid]

What is this supposed to mean in the context of this discussion ?

[Skgoa]

That even though the "Al-Qaida/panic NOW!!!" label is on this, it's not really at all what one would expect when listening to western media exclusively. It's a counter-point to the rabid (sorry, no pun intended) islamophobia that many of our american members have developed in recent years and that permeates most threads we have on this topic.

[Rabid]

I see.

Yeah, it's true that to be intellectually honest one has to put into perspective the "label" of the product with the product itself and its content.
Al-Qaeda is only a name, that has come to be associated with a vast nebula of various organizations promoting radical Islamism. It doesn't mean, though, that each and everyone of the constituent cells in this vast constellation is equal and share the same methods, means or even goals - or even that they are effectively linked to each others.

To say that an organization is "linked to Al-Qaeda" (whatever that really mean nowadays), in practice, mean absolutely nothing about its exact goals, its methods or resources.



Back to the topic, even if it is the only party to have gathered a two digit percentage of votes in the last elections, Tunisia's moderate Islamic party (closer to an European Christian Democrat party/coalition of parties than the radical islamists people like to be afraid of) won only 37% of all votes.
IMHO, it can hardly be interpreted as a sign of a country ready to sink into a religious dictatorship. Even more so when said country has a long and established history of secularism, AND has an highly educated population.