[/caption]
This past Saturday, Tunisia’s 111 registered political parties were given the go ahead to begin their campaigns, just about three weeks before election day. Garnering grassroots support has become the aim of many of the political parties, especially for the larger ones like Ennahda and Ettakatol—the former launched its campaign in Sidi Bouzid, the hometown of Mohammad Bouazizi, while the latter launched its campaign in Kasserine, one of the several cities in the interior recognized for spearheading the revolution against the Ben Ali government. Many more parties, like the Movement of Democrat Patriots and the Communist Workers’ Party appealed to their constituents in Tunis.
This grassroots element says a lot for what might end up being a transition from dictatorship to democracy. What is disturbing, however, is that some voters are being rewarded for their attendance in order to help the party in question to project an image of widespread support. For example, the PDP was dubbed the Party of Sandwiches for handing out sandwiches to would be attendees, which was seen as a bribe by many. According to a journalist I spoke to about this phenomenon, some of the so-called supporters she interviewed at different political rallies told her that they had similar experiences even though they were still undecided.
An opinion poll released on 29 September put Ennahda at 25 percent; the Progressive Democratic Party (PDP) at 16 percent; Ettakatol at 14 percent; and the Congress Party for the Republic (CPR) at 8 percent. If these numbers remain relatively the same, then Tunisians could conceivably see a constituent assembly in which four parties hold the majority—63 percent—of the 218 seats on offer.
The launch of campaigning in Tunisia follows a heated debate amongst politicians about campaigning policies and procedures. Election law states that political parties cannot begin their campaigns until 22 days prior to election day in which they must stop campaigning by midnight the day before the first vote is cast—in this case, by midnight on the 21st. Many of the parties, however, especially those with more financial support, had already begun their campaigns before the designated time. It was not until those parties that had not begun their campaigns, especially the parties that had formed in the aftermath of the revolution as well as the smaller parties, complained to the independent electoral commission (ISIE), which then announced a ban on 3 September on all political advertising to go into effect on 12 September. By this time, the damage had already been done, not to mention the fact that many of the parties continued to campaign in spite of the ban.
In other election news, according to the article on electoral campaigning in Tunisia, candidates may not use international media outlets for campaigning purposes. ISIE has opted for a strict interpretation of this law, whereas it has banned all political parties from even being interviewed by foreign journalists. This has caused a big stir amongst politicians and journalists alike, who argue that the law only makes sense if it is referring to the banning of paid political advertising in the international media.
This is a serious downside for Tunisians and a major disappointment for foreign journalists. What would otherwise be dynamic coverage of political campaigning in Tunisia has been relegated to international coverage that will lack character, substance, accuracy and analytical diversity.
Meanwhile, the whole world is watching. The election on 23 October will be the first election after Tunisians themselves managed to not only overthrow their leader of 24 years, but to ignite the long-dormant spirits of an entire region. And ISIE is telling me that I cannot interview politicians participating in this momentous event?
A related issue is that journalists must be accredited by 8 October, which, due to the nature of their jobs, will prevent them from being accredited at all. This is bound to cause a mess on election day, when many of the big name journalists will arrive, only to be turned away by ISIE for not having had been accredited on time.
Such strict interpretations of electoral law at the expense of logistics and practicalities have become the norm for the commissioners at ISIE. One possible reason for this could be that many of them come from a legal background and view elections as a legal matter rather than a logistical matter in which the letter of the law should be overridden in favor of the spirit of the law. All one may hope for at this point is a serious learning curve by election day when there will be no time for foolish decisions or grave mistakes.
