Secretary General of Tunisia General Labor Union (UGTT) Houcine Abbasi refused to take part in the national dialogue initiative launched by the interim President Moncef Marzouki on April 15.

A high-profile delegation visited Abbasi in his office at UGTT’s headquarters in Tunis and exerted unfruitful efforts to convince him to attend the first round of dialogue between the country’s parties under Marzouki’s sponsorship at Carthage Palace.

Secretary General of Tunisia General Labor Union (UGTT) Houcine Abbasi refused to take part in the national dialogue initiative launched by the interim President Moncef Marzouki on April 15.

A high-profile delegation visited Abbasi in his office at UGTT’s headquarters in Tunis and exerted unfruitful efforts to convince him to attend the first round of dialogue between the country’s parties under Marzouki’s sponsorship at Carthage Palace.

The visiting party delegation included Ennahda leadership member and head of its parliamentary bloc at the National Constituent Assembly (NCA) Sahbi Atigue and Ettakatol Party leadership member and head of its parliamentary bloc Mouldi Riahi, both as representatives of the government, in addition to MP and Secretary-General of the Republican Party Maya Jribi, MP and Democratic Alliance spokesperson Mehdi Ben Gharbia and Rida Belhaj, a leading member of Call For Tunisia Party led by former prime minister and Ennahda’s archenemy Beji Caid el Sebsi.

Zubair Shhoudi, Chief of Staff of Ennahda leader Rashid Ghannouchi, suggested ongoing attempts at arranging a meeting between Ghannouchi and UGTT leader in the coming days. Call for Tunisia has conditioned its rejoining Marzouki’s dialogue initiative on the joining of UGTT and all other refraining sides, chiefly the Popular Front.

Observers are not surprised by UGTT’s boycott despite it being the national dialogue’s main campaigner and greatest advocate. Ennahda was the main party boycotting the first round of the national dialogue organized by UGTT on October 16, 2012 in protest of the participation of Cal For Tunisia, which Ennahda accuses of rebuilding the dissolved Constitutional Democratic Rally (RCD).

UGTT said it would not participate in an initiative boycotted by key political players and at the same underlined its neutrality and keenness to positively interact with all initiatives designed to bring all opposing views closer and speed up the national reconciliation process.

Abbasi renewed his invitation to all sides to take part as soon as possible in the second round of the national dialogue which might be organized on May 1 simultaneously with the Labor Day celebrations bringing together all political parties and civil society organizations.

Thus, what did change between October 2012 and April 2013 to make UGTT change its mind even though Ennahda finally agreed to sit at the same negotiation table alongside Call For Tunisia and even formed a joint delegation with it to meet with UGTT leadership and try to alter its position? What made the hard-nosed Ennahda run after UGTT to sit with it on the same negotiation table after boycotting its previous calls for dialogue?

During the seven months between 16 October and 22 April, serious changes occurred which turned the terms of the formula upside down and consequently changed the positions and attitudes of all sides involved.

The beginning was on the 4th of December when militias known as the Revolution Protection Leagues (RPLs) accompanied with members from Ennahda, attacked UGTT’s headquarters and assaulted some of its members.

Many reports reported attempts to topple the legally elected UGTT leadership and seize control of its headquarters. This coordinated attack came after a fierce defamation campaign launched against UGTT leadership by Ennahda media and social network websites.

Violence peaked on February 6 with the assassination of the prominent leftist leader, Shoukri Belaid, and once again all fingers were pointing at Ennahda.

In both incidents, there was a general feeling that the official investigation conducted was far from serious. In fact, that Ennahda-led government insisted on harboring RPLs and refused to take any action against them, which is what what foiled the ad hoc joint investigation committee’s efforts and further broadened the gap between the two sides.

Furthermore, the Popular Front has grown angrier over the statements made by President Marzouki during his visits to Germany and Qatar where he criticized his opponents and did not act as a president for all Tunisians as dictated by protocols and the rules of correct behavior on official occasions.

This explains UGTT’s insistence on refusing the “take it or leave it” policy and not joining the national dialogue initiative despite its full agreement to its objectives.

UGTT insisted on resuming the national dialogue initiative it launched and on holding the second round without any delay, which proves that UGTT, which is fully aware of the magnitude and significance of its national and which was a key element in the country’s struggle for independence and for building the national state of Tunisia, refuses to be drawn into serving certain political agendas that narrow the country’s window of salvation to simply planning the nation’s upcoming events.

The main concern of UGTT is to protect the country from violence and to face up to oppression and domination, which is why UGTT’s leaders insist on bringing Belaid’s killers and their sponsors to justice and punish those who attacked UGTT’s headquarters.

Other agreements would be no more than a short-term pain reliever that will eventually bring the country back to chaos, confrontations and authoritarianism. This is especially true in light of the increasing problems of the NCA, which represents the original authority, and the fact that many of its members are implicated in cases that have shaken its public image and made the number of people calling for its dissolution to grow even further.

Marzouki’s initiative has failed even before its launch. But, will UGTT succeed in taming Ennahda and uniting the country’s politicians and civil society players to agree on momentous decisions to protect the country from sinking in rough seas?