Since the revolution, no personality has stirred as much controversy yet remained as popular as Beji Caid Sebsi, former prime minister and head of Call for Tunisia Party.

Since the revolution, no personality has stirred as much controversy yet remained as popular as Beji Caid Sebsi, former prime minister and head of Call for Tunisia Party.

Shortly after its post-2011-revolution founding, Call for Tunisia Party faced open confrontation with the ruling Islmaist party Ennahda, but was able to overcome vicious competition and reach the top of opinion polls. Tension increased when the Revolution Immunization Law was passed.  Sebsi perceived it as aimed at excluding him, while opponents accused his party of including members of the dissolved Constitutional Democratic Rally (RCD).

Following the events in Egypt, which culminated in the ousting of Egyptian President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, Call for Tunisia Party released a statement describing Tunisia’s current government as lacking electoral and consensual legitimacy at this stage of democratic transition in Tunisia.

Call for Tunisia openly criticized Ennahda for stalling the progress of the Constitution, infiltrating state institutions with incompetent individuals, especially in security establishments, and exploiting the justice system for use against rivals. The party also called to dissolve the current government and replace it with a new “national salvation government” composed of national political figures and experts and to formulate a technical committee to correct the current draft constitution.

Beji Caid Sebsi shares his opinions and goals with Correspondents in this exclusive interview.

Mr. Caid Sebsi, a recent statement by Call for Tunisia Party stressed your former position that electoral legitimacy of the current government expired since October 23, 2012 and its popular legitimacy has been dropped, following the assassination of Shoukri Belaid.  Would you describe this statement as an invitation to activate the legitimacy of the street to set the revolutionary path straight?

Absence of electoral, popular or consensual legitimacy would result in political emptiness, which is totally rejected. Our statement released on Thursday, July 4, 2013 stressed our former position, but considering Tunisia’s developments and those around the world, especially in Egypt, we intended to raise awareness to not experience Egypt’s situation since the current government has failed to meet the demands of the people for which it was basically elected.

President Morsi enjoyed electoral legitimacy for four years in office, but his actions failed to meet the aspirations of the people who rebelled against and isolated him. Consequently, electoral legitimacy is not enough unless accompanied by performance legitimacy.

In fact, each electoral period commits its holder to perform specific tasks in line with people’s aspirations that when not achieved, would result in creating a gap in the relationship between the politician and his people.

In Egypt, legitimacy is owned by the people who delegated Morsi and his government to run the state and achieve the demands of the January 25 Revolution. In other words, legitimacy can not be taken for granted, but rather a popular delegation to perform specific missions.

If the delegate did not met the people’s expectations, they have the right to withdraw their given confidence and delegation, which is exactly the Egyptian situation in which Morsi, who was elected by 11,000,000 Egyptians, was protested against by 30,000,000 who said, “We are fed up as you failed to meet our demands.”

Has the ruling coalition met the people’s demands in Tunisia?

We hope that the current government is aware that the key to resolving the country’s dilemma is to open a dialogue with all existing political powers to reach a common ground and consensus. If the government is helpless in achieving such a mission or has hidden intensions against such end, we are heading towards an increased crisis.

The ruling government, however, confidently believes Tunisia’s situation is different from the Egyptian one. How do you comment on such statements?

Everything is possible in Tunisia and other countries when politicians are ignorant of their peoples’ reaction to their mischief. We do not intend to repeat the Egyptian example, but if this state of political, social and economic deterioration persists, the Egyptian scenario would likely occur in Tunis. Therefore, serious initiatives must be considered to avoid escalation of risks.

What do you think of Ennahda’s failure to commit to the National Dialogue agreements to which it obliged itself before discussing the draft constitution?

In fact, the draft constitution is in progress and positive achievements were accomplished in numerous matters, but this draft contains a number of contradictions. For example, chapter one (maintained as in Tunisia’s Constitution of 1959), stipulates, “Tunisia is a free, independent and sovereign state. Its religion is Islam, its language is Arabic and its form of government is a republic,” but such a statement contradicts the stealthily added chapter 141, which defines Islam as the religion of the state contradicting thus the first chapter and the concept of a civil state. It even promotes the establishment of a religious state.

In addition, a full dimension under transitional provisions was added to the Constitution, which is unacceptable since the main aim of two years of constitutional discourse, constituent actions and seminars was to formulate a Constitution to be applied upon sealing, not to end up with suspended acts to be executed after a three year-transitional period. This is an unacceptable Constitution, the formulators of which have bad intensions that are not in line with the revolution’s correct path.

We have elected a constituent assembly of 217 members in order to formulate the state’s Constitution. We, as representatives of the people, have not delegated Habib Khedher, the General Rapporteur on the Constitution (from the Ennahda Movement) to draft the Constitution. This, perhaps, is the reason why a number of the Constituent Assembly members accused the draft constitution of being forged and going in the opposite direction of Tunisia’s aspirations.

What is the solution to correct the transitional path, in your opinion?

It lies in conducting a serious dialogue, not the illusion of one since the ruling parties, especially Ennahda, are not inclined to drafting the invite other political powers to participate in a dialogue that determines the future of the country. Constructive dialogue results in creating an effective common ground.

Do you think that Brotherhood’s crisis in Egypt would affect Ennahda to be more flexible on contentious issues related to the Constitution and running the country?

Ennahda has no other choice. We are at a crossroads where it is either be flexible and open to dialogue or ends up at a dead end.

French President Francois Hollande stated during his visit to Tunisia that France is the closest successful model for the Arab Spring. Do you agree?

There is no Arab Spring actually, there is a Tunisian Spring that would incite an Arab one if Tunisia proved its success, but we have not yet done that,  as we still face several obstacles in the democratic transitional process. However, I believe that Tunisia does enjoy more success factors than other Arab and Islamic countries in terms of education, women’s liberation and free health services.

Despite having such essential factors to establish a modern civilized country, it is not enough since numerous social and economic reforms are required to overcome the critical repercussions experienced by the country since the revolution. We should consider an efficient plan to achieve social justice since we suffer high unemployment and poverty rates.

You said the Revolution Immunization Law is intended to immune Ennahda against Call for Tunisia, its fiercest competitor. Do you believe that to be effective?

I do not think so, as I am convinced that this law will not be implemented in Tunisia since it is not in the best interest of the country. We are in a critical situation where politicians are required to seek unity and bridge the gap within the Tunisian society, not the contrary.

Leagues for the Protection of the Revolution (LPR) have violently replied to your statement and threatened against serious consequence. How would you comment?

The LPR are criminals who have repeatedly threatened us to the extent of actually murdering Call for Tunisia’s Regional Coordinator Lutfi Nakedh. The government, however, turns a blind eye to such criminal acts, since the ruling parties of Ennahda and the Congress are protected and defended by the LPR.

Were you charged with manipulating state money, on the background of selling Slim Chiboub shares of  the oil exploration license ‘Voydger’ after confiscation, before or after you were appointed minister?

They were all lies and allegations promoted by the media. They are defamation campaigns against symbols of Call for Tunisia Party, launched by our opponents. All such nonsense does not intimidate me since my conscience is clear. They are merely desperate, helpless attempts to distort our image reflecting low level politics. I am sorry to see Tunisia’s political morals degraded to such an unprecedented degree.