Interview with the author: Khemaïs Chamari

In a few words, how would you sum up the status of freedom of association in Tunisia?
K.C: On two occasions we met with Anouar Kousri, Vice President of the LTDH (Tunisian League for Human Rights), and member of the working group that wrote a large part of the Tunisia report, to review the report and hand it in. Though Tunisia is a member state of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and though Article 8 of the Tunisian Constitution guarantees freedom of association, the current situation in Tunisia is extremely preoccupying. Out of more than seven thousand listed associations, less than a dozen have any autonomy at all in relation to the State, and they are constantly subjected to all types of persecution including police and judiciary harassment which hinders their ability to act. This is the case of the LTDH (which has not been able to hold its 6th
congress for over three years), the ATFD (Tunisian Association of Democratic Women), and the AFTURD (Association of Tunisian Women for Research and Development), as well as for the Tunisian Association of Magistrates, which was victim of a tough political power struggle. A dozen other associations have not been granted legal authorization and are forced to operate clandestinely, with all the risks this comprises: the CNLT (National Council for Liberties in Tunisia), the Tunisian Association for the Struggle Against Torture, the AISPP (International Association for the Support of Political Prisoners) and other associations which fight against all forms of violence, including physical attacks. The Tunisian Journalists’ Syndicate was prevented from holding its first general meeting whereas according to the Constitution, this does not require prior authorization! Lastly, it is impossible to establish coalitions or networks (death sentence, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, initiative launched by the LTDH and Tunisian Section of Amnesty International amongst others, the 18 October Collective for Rights and Liberties was prohibited from meeting some fifty times in two years), because authorities demand authorizations for any initiative of this type, yet never answer such requests. In reality, the State wishes to control and monopolize associations and civil society. But it is the very foundation of our legislation which is the cause, for the prevailing system of government is a so-called “dualist” system, which means constitutional guarantee combined with legislative regulations that systematically restrict the exercise of liberties. The only solution would be to call into question the entire system of prior consent and switch to a “declaratory system,” whereby the relative ministry could, of course, refuse the constitution of an association, if based on a judiciary decision (but not suspend the activities of the association).
What is the principal negative point?
It is naturally the one I just mentioned, as well as the fact that interference on behalf of the authorities is increasingly frequent when it comes to associations – and in particular those which make their desire for independence known. Such interference takes on varying forms, which range from the more or less discreet presence of law officers to strong-arm operations and true shows of force, such as “sealing off” offices (LTDH headquarters and branches), forcing association leaders to resign from their posts, changing locks to offices, and instigating legal proceedings that are prepared in advance, with interventions by militant State-party partisans. Recently, fire was set to Mr. Ayachi Hammami’s office. And we are currently witnessing the systematic multiplication of strictly “pro-governmental” associations and organizations (PGOs and GONGOs), to the detriment of non-governmental associations (NGOs) which must struggle against restrictions, non-recognition and exclusion. These so-called pro-governmental associations have extensive means to control, politically and socially, the populations within their perimeters. Furthermore, they contribute to the development of aggressive and misleading policies regarding the representation of “civil society” at the international level, for despite their propaganda, they seek exclusivity.

What are the obstacles to the peaceful exercise of freedom of association?
There are the elements I evoked above, to which we must add the extremely perverse subterfuges used when it comes to interpreting the law, subduing the legal system, muzzling the press and audiovisual medias, access to and communication over the Internet, the refusal to recognize the existence of political associations, the impossibility to appear in court or associate in court actions with the public prosecutor, the slow legal system and near impossibility of appealing to civil or administrative courts. Lastly, the freedom to move around and the possibility of requesting public or private financing are arbitrary. As you are well aware, funds from outside the country are blocked (LTDH, ATFD, AFTURD, etc.), including European Union subsidies for the Euro-Med Partnership and National Action Plan of the European Neighborhood Policy.

What is the principal positive point in the current situation of freedom of association in Tunisia and what are your personal feelings about the future of this freedom?
The picture is quite black, but faced with the arbitrary use of power, the handful of officially recognized independent associations, as well as those forced into “non-legal” activity, show a will to resist and have displayed signs of “insubordination to the law on associations” over the past eight or nine years. At a LTDH seminar, Mrs. Sanaa Ben Achour, a talented jurist and feminist association leader, commented on “strategies to defend the ruling principles of freedom of association in Tunisia.” According to her, since the end of the 90s we have witnessed “the development of a pacific movement of insubordination as regards the law on associations. Braving interdictions, committees and councils gather in public in broad daylight, investing public places despite the risk of repression (….). This democratic dissidence movement, the importance of which must not be overblown, nonetheless represents a breach in the political system and indeed a new form of social awakening which has legitimately enabled certain persons to declare that fear is changing sides.” The multiplication of hunger strikes in protest for passports and the freedom to have premises, against torture and the imprisonment of political opponents, as well as the consensus on the demand for general amnesty for victims of repression, are all manifestations – despite the harshness of such repression – that enable us to hope for a new political opening and the evolution of a totalitarian system founded upon political and social control, police supervision, and “submission to obedience,” a phenomenon which French researcher Béatrice Hibou described and analyzed in her recent outstanding economic and political science thesis on Tunisia.