State-Movement Interaction in Tunisia: Insiders and Outsiders

How do state officials interact with social movement organizations in post Arab Spring Tunisia? Taking the example of an African and Arab country, the paper asks the question on interactions between the state and SMOs. Having Tilly in mind, the processes between insiders and outsiders and their relationships are regarded (Tilly 2000:1f.; Tilly 1995:384; Tilly 2002:191). While scholars generally assign that social movements and larger civil society was and is an important pillar of the Tunisian democratization process (Paciello 2011:8; Gelvin 2015:72), little is said about how this interaction actually works and how it relates to democratization processes. Tilly underlines that “we have reason to expect at least a correlation between democratization and the proliferation of social movements in many countries”, also including that social movements necessarily cause democratization (Tilly 1993/1994:21; see also LeBas 2011:14ff. for an overview of movements and democratisation processes). How does this translate in the context of Tunisia ? The situation suggests that administration “uses” movements in terms of expertise and similar to what Kriesi et al. wrote on the knowledge accumulation by the administration (Kriesi et al 1995:31). Similarly, Tarrow, referring to Tilly, argues that variations in government capacity influence the level of involvement of movements (Tarrow 2008:239). In this sense, the arguable weak Tunisian state following the 2011 uprisings has not enough expertise and relies therefore on external actors. In this sense, movements and civil society managed to be perceived as experts in their domain of action and thus be consulted. Missing expertise on the other hand will lead to ignorance by the ministry. In addition, civil society does not only provide expertise, but also generate legitimacy of decisions when being consulted. The civil society can be described as controller of the Tunisian state, but also as constitutive element. The paper draws on 38 semi-structured interviews conducted with leaders in civil society between 2015 and 2016 as well as with state representatives working in Tunisian ministries. Taking the 13 interviews with ministries as point of departure, the connections and criteria for interaction with larger civil society are analyzed. The ministerial perspective is then compared to movement expectations on their implication. The analyses mainly confirm theoretical assumptions, but also find evidence for confidence between the state and movements based on shared values. In addition, while state representatives refer to a legal framework that mandates civil society consultation, the processes and criteria for inclusion of movements differ. In addition, being bound to certain mechanisms and as suggested by Tilly, disruptive protest is seen as outsider tactic.