While most reports and studies over the past years have predicted an impending explosion of social movements in Tunisia due to the worsening economic crisis both nationally and globally, the reality points, on the contrary, to an unprecedented state of paralysis and decline in protests. The Tunisian Forum for Economic and Social Rights’ Observatory of Social Movements has recorded a decrease in the number of social protests in Tunisia compared to previous years despite the worsening social and economic conditions. By tracing the relationship between civil society and social movements, we can observe the extent to which the transformations within civil society have impacted social movements in general and social activists in particular.
The restriction on the right to peaceful assembly can take various forms. This right is considered fundamental and is closely tied to the right to freedom of expression and opinion, as it represents a form of collective expression. Fundamental rights, consistent with their designation, are rights that citizens enjoy automatically, with the state intervening only in exceptional cases under pre-established regulations related to a higher public interest, without infringing upon the essence of the right. Thus, any assault on the right to freedom of expression and opinion is a restriction on public space and a targeting of the various rights exercised within it, most notably the right to peaceful assembly. We will attempt to understand the implications of restricting the right to peaceful assembly on social movements by focusing on three interconnected themes: risks, allies, and the public.
A Preemptive and Individual Cost
Most social movements in recent years have originated from villages or small towns, addressing issues that directly concern the residents of these areas. However, these movements have faced numerous challenges that prevented their expansion despite being connected to broader, shared issues such as the right to water, a healthy environment, or employment. These movements remained limited, fragmented, and security-restricted, so they failed to gain the necessary momentum to influence national political decisions.
The movements led by residents of Houaidia in the Jendouba governorate and the movement in the village of Ouled Jaballah in the Mahdia governorate are notable examples. These movements were organized and led by local activists who employed various unique methods. The social movement in the village of Ouled Jeballah succeeded in creating significant momentum by uniting the villagers around a set of demands and holding large meetings attended by many residents. After forming a small farmers’ coordination committee, they established connections with farmers in other areas, creating a noticeable dynamic. The protests in Ouled Jaballah began in 2021 in response to successive increases in feed prices, during which the villagers were subjected to severe violence, including tear gas and security assaults to disperse the protesters. The “state’s punitive violence” left its mark on Ouled Jaballah, which subsequently received significant support from national organizations and associations that organized several solidarity convoys to the village. The movement maintained its vitality through a series of actions in neighboring rural areas, with protests reigniting in 2022, successfully pressuring the Ministry of Trade to reverse recent price increases.
Similarly, in 2020, a sit-in was staged to close down an extraction plant that had polluted the natural spring the area relies on for drinking water. They sought to expand the protest by forming resident groups and broadening participation through various initiatives, including popular education initiatives and preparatory gatherings for demonstrations and sit-ins.
However, the repeated legal actions against social activists who led these movements have significantly impacted the continuation and development of the movements. The authorities adopted a retaliatory policy against several activists leading social movements, initiating repeated legal actions against some of them. This has gradually shifted these issues from the public sphere, which includes broad and diverse groups, to a narrower space limited to those with personal or comradeship ties to these individuals, thus weakening the circle of solidarity.
Moreover, the authorities often preemptively harassed activists to stifle protest movements in their early stages. This occurred with several activists in Zarzis, a coastal city in southern Tunisia, following the crisis in late 2022 when many young people from the area drowned in a boat attempting illegal migration. The authorities sought to track information about the timing and location of protests, summoning activists for questioning before the protests took place.
These preemptive measures often disrupt movements and hinder initiatives, leaving room only for spontaneous, event-driven protests that are short-lived and reactive. In general, the shrinking public space and the noticeable increase in risks directly affect individuals, diminishing their willingness to express their opinions, mainly through peaceful assembly. Peaceful assembly remains one of the most sensitive means of expression and protest, especially in transitional and restrictive contexts, as it is necessarily conducted in a collective and open space where participants are more vulnerable to harassment and legal actions.
Divide and Conquer: The Authorities’ Strategy to Isolate Their Opponents
Allies play a crucial role in the landscape of civil and political action in its broadest sense. The intersections among various actors directly impact issues, and as the influence of political power expands and the ability to impact policies through political tools such as elections, parliament, and local authorities diminishes, the responsibilities placed on civil intermediaries to act as a counterforce grow significantly.
Political power generally remains vigilant to the influence that civil and political actors could wield if they were to unite to limit its power and oppose its policies. To prevent the formation of broad alliances, authorities often resort to various tactics, including the time-tested strategy of weakening opponents: divide and conquer.
In the aftermath of July 25, there was noticeable confusion among several actors in Tunisia regarding how to characterize the new political authority and assess its intentions. This led to a general state of fragmentation and weakness. While some were preoccupied with evaluating and dealing with internal disagreements arising from differing views on the new regime and how to engage with its institutions, the authorities had already embarked on a course of action that revealed ill intentions to restrict civil space. There was a systematic targeting of different entities at different times, with rapid-fire campaigns against political parties, trade unionists, journalists, civil society, and lawyers. Meanwhile, a pervasive sense of anticipation deepened the isolation of civil actors, making coordination among them increasingly weak. Eventually, solidarity became highly narrow, limited to a few entities and specific forms such as statements, declarations, and reports, while other protest tools diminished.
For example, the protests that erupted in the city of Agareb over a recurring waste crisis were met with violent security intervention, which, according to the testimonies of several activists, led to the death of a protester due to tear gas inhalation despite the Ministry of Interior’s denial. The city later witnessed a general strike called for by the Tunisian General Labor Union, and both the Tunisian Forum for Economic and Social Rights and the National Union of Tunisian Journalists supported and accompanied the movement. However, the issue remained unresolved as the campaign struggled to maintain pressure amid the arrests of several activists and the local authorities’ adoption of an internal incitement policy to weaken and isolate the protest movement, framing it as an issue solely concerning the residents of Agareb, which gradually eroded the movement’s ability to exert influence and attract support.
The issuance of Decree No. 54, which systematically targets journalists and civil and political elites, further complicated matters. The struggle against the decree consumed significant effort and time from many actors, causing social movements to lose the involvement of many allies. Despite their privileges and extensive networks, the visible threat to civil and media elites had a clear impact on social movements. Social activists found themselves increasingly isolated, without a supportive base, facing a state apparatus intent on systematically restricting activists, reducing the margin of maneuver in public spaces, and imposing a state of self-censorship and automatic restraint.
A Desolate Public Sphere: A Lost Battle or an Opportunity?
The right to peaceful assembly heavily relies on the ability to mobilize. While peaceful assembly encompasses not only demonstrations but also meetings and gatherings, it remains a form of collective protest. Therefore, when reflecting on the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly and the changes it has undergone in recent years, it is essential not to overlook the objective factors that have weakened public engagement, including the participation of citizens, residents of specific areas, and particular professional or social groups, and have generally reduced activists’ inclination to exercise this right.
In this context, it is impossible to deny the exhaustion experienced by civil and political actors, a phenomenon extensively highlighted by social sciences, especially in recent years, through the study of the effects of globalization and the structural changes that societies are undergoing on collective action in general. This exhaustion is particularly pronounced among social movements. Despite the past decade’s challenges and failures, significant human rights gains have been won through the combined efforts of civil forces using various methods of struggle. Notable among these are critical legislative amendments and the issuance of progressive laws in the field of rights and freedoms, such as the revision of detention and preventive custody procedures through Law No. 5 of 2016, the enactment of the Law on Combating Violence Against Women in 2017, and the Law on Combating Racial Discrimination in 2018. However, notable progress has yet to be made in terms of economic and social rights.
On the contrary, there has been a marked decline in development indicators, a deterioration in purchasing power, and a rise in poverty and inequality, leading to widening class and social divides. These successive disappointments, attributed to the ferocity of unjust economic policies and the increasing influence of financial and vested interests on political decision-making, have resulted in a general state of stagnation and a diminishing belief in the ability to effect change. Given the lack of tangible gains from social movements and the growing losses suffered by many activists who led these movements over the years, these protest methods have lost their appeal to a broad segment of the targeted audience. The ability to mobilize and rally has diminished in the face of a general climate of despair and the fading hope of realizing the revolutionary slogans of “Work, Freedom, National Dignity” after twelve years of failed attempts, transitional periods, and successive crises.
Moreover, virtual space, particularly social media, has contributed to the diminishing momentum of peaceful assembly. Although it has played a pivotal and positive role at times in coordinating and documenting protests and rallies and mobilizing support, it has increasingly become a space for venting anger and frustration over the general situation. As a result, it has come to serve as a palliative for the rage and dissent that should otherwise be translated into collective action on the ground, enabling more significant influence and achieving the desired change.
Undoubtedly, the state of frustration and emptiness in the public sphere often explains the caution and hesitation in organizing any form of peaceful assembly to avoid further disappointments and losses. However, while this situation hinders civil action, it could also present a real opportunity for action and change if accompanied by a serious study of the risks and opportunities. The more tension and anger there is, the greater the opportunity to invest in it correctly to achieve substantial demands for those affected by the state’s economic, social, and environmental policies. The need for change is present, shared, and growing. The challenge lies in transforming this negative dissent into positive dissent that offers an alternative to the status quo. The continuity achieved by the example of the farmers in Ouled Jaballah is evidence that the opportunity always exists, despite the many challenges, to capitalize on the moment and take action on the ground in favor of vital rights that garner the necessary support and backing.
Despite the variance in observations and assessments of developments concerning the right to peaceful assembly across different issues, contexts, and timeframes, it is crucial to analyze the specificities and then attempt to place these conclusions within their broader context and understand the challenges facing the right to peaceful assembly in absolute terms. Trust and hope are essential elements in understanding the public’s response to calls for action. In their absence, the prospects for change remain limited, even if restrictions are eased and authorities cease to encroach on rights. This means that the more civil and political actors succeed in rebuilding trust in their legitimacy and restoring hope in the possibility of achieving change, the more the public sphere will gradually regain its vitality and resilience, paving the way for strong alliances and greater capacities for mobilization, influence, and advocacy in favor of vital causes.
