Less than 48 hours after President Rached Ghannouchi signed a road map in Tunis this past October, the Shura Council issued a statement contradicting the quartet—an initiative launched by the four sponsors of the national dialogue—on how to deal with the current political crisis.

Shura Council, the supreme authority

Less than 48 hours after President Rached Ghannouchi signed a road map in Tunis this past October, the Shura Council issued a statement contradicting the quartet—an initiative launched by the four sponsors of the national dialogue—on how to deal with the current political crisis.

Shura Council, the supreme authority

While the statement issued by the Shura Council on the struggling national dialogue reflects the apparent differences in the political perceptions within the Ennahda movement in general. It also calls for a reconsideration of the nature of the Shura institution, the contradictions that divide it and its relationship to the rest of movement’s institutions, especially the movement’s presidency, its relationship to the parliamentary bloc of the party in the Constituent Assembly and the representatives of the movement in the government.

According to the internal bylaws of the Ennahda Movement, which were revised at the last conference in 2012: “The Shura Council has the supreme authority over the presidency of the movement and its executive office. It represents the second authority within the structures of the party after the General Assembly.

The council is characterized by the diversity of its components as it consists of 150 members. Two-thirds are elected by the conferees in direct secret ballot on the condition that the two-thirds, during the first session of the Shura Council, choose the other third on the basis of the representation of the competencies, provinces, Diaspora, youth, women, the parliamentary bloc and the governmental team of the party.

The Shura Council meets every three months and whenever necessary by the request of the Council’s President or one third of its members or by the request of the president of the movement and derives its authority from the tasks entrusted to it. It has the authority to “regulate major policies and determine the general course of the party and choose who shall, on behalf of the party, head the state, the government and the presidency of the Legislative Council.”

The Council shall also determine the conditions and procedures for the selection of the party candidates for the parliamentary, provincial and municipal election and so on. It also has some important powers, including “monitoring the work of the executive board of the movement, recommending the members of the Executive Board, and the withdrawal of confidence from the executive office or from one of its members.”

The Shura Council, since Ennahda’s rise to power, became known for its contradictory internal political stances. These contradictions led some observers to believe that there are two wings within it, each standing on an opposite side. The first wing is the “hawks” in reference to its hard-line stances and the second is the “doves” in reference to its moderate stances. 

Institutions decide

Differences within the Ennahda Movement have started to surface, most notably when the Secretary General of the Movement and former Prime Minister Hamadi Jebali announced his desire to form a government of technocrats on February 6, 2013, the day the leftist opposition leader Chokri Belaid was assassinated.

This step was strongly rejected by the Shura Council and they pushed to impose the option of “the formation of a political coalition government based on the legitimacy of October 23 elections.”

Recently, a statement issued by the Shura Council rejecting the roadmap after it had been signed by the president of the movement, raised many reactions, leading to the return of predictions in the media and the political circles about the launch of a new chapter of differences within the Ennahda Movement.

Some observers believe that these differences are natural and are internal affairs that could be settled by resorting to institutions of the movement. However, there are others who consider them part of a policy based on the distribution of roles adopted by the Ennahda movement in administrating its negotiations with its opponents.

In a statement Hisham Larayadh, a member of the Shura Council and the son of Prime Minister Ali Larayadh said: “The disparity between the head of the movement Rachid Ghannouchi and the Shura Council on the roadmap is normal,” pointing out that the Council agrees with the head of the movement on determining the mechanisms to resolve the crisis.

Hicham Larayadh considered that the movement is hive of ideas and different views and perceptions. These differences are managed through democratic dialogue or by resorting to the movement’s institutions. The Shura Council is considered the highest authority in the party and the official voice of the movement in general. He added that “members present their ideas and viewpoints, but in the end the decision is taken by the party’s institutions and it is the duty of all members to adhere and respect the decisions taken by these institutions.”

Is the president the official representative of the movement?

Abdel Fattah Moro, a member of the Shura Council and the vice president of the movement, said that every movement has an official body that represents it and the official representative of Ennahda Movement is its President Sheikh Rashed Ghannouchi. He noted that there are many persons speaking on behalf of the movement and this may lead to chaos and affect the credibility of the movement.

Abdel Fattah Moro denied the presence of a split or separation within the movement similar to that witnessed by some other parties. At the same time, he noted that there are many streams within the movement and the differences in views are managed through resorting to the movement’s institutions.

This position is questionable if we take into consideration the statement made by Seyyed Ferjani, a member of the Shura Council when he said: “The council is following-up on the national dialogue and is assessing the statements and positions of the movement’s leadership. However, the council may take action against Rached Ghannouchi, the head of the movement himself, if he decides, all by himself, on issues in the framework of the dialogue that are not consistent with the Shura Council choices.”

Ziad Lakhdhar, a Tunisian politician, the Secretary-General of the Democratic Patriots’ Movement (DPM) and a prominent leader of the Popular Front, said the differences within Ennahda are real. They reflect the presence of different interests and visions that can be noticed through the statements and stances of its members.”  However, these differences, according to Ziad, are mere internal affairs and are not an issue of concern for the opposition because the latter deals with the movement through its official binding channels and which are until now represented by the president of the movement, Sheikh Rashed Ghannouchi.

Regarding the impact of internal differences within the Ennahda Movement on the path of national dialogue, Lakhdhar said that he does not rule out the possibility that those differences might affect the dialogue. “This should urge other parties to demand additional guarantees during the dialogue sessions,” stressed Lakhdhar.  

Minor differences

Differences in viewpoints within the Ennahda Movement made some observers assert the existence of signs of splits, which will pave the way for blowing the organizational unity of the movement.

This conclusion is considered by Qais Saeed, professor of constitutional law and a political analyst, as “premature”. He pointed out that there are already differences in views, and there are contradictions which appear in the declared stances between a moderate stream and another stream described as the extremist and militant stream. There is also the diaspora group and the prisons group.

According to Professor Qais Saeed, all these differences have not yet reached the level of splits or disintegration. If there were already splits, they would have become known by now and this is something that has not happened yet.

Professor Qais Saeed noted that “party discipline” is considered the master of the situation in the resolution of conflicts within the movement. One example is the discipline of the parliamentary bloc of the movement and its respect of the Shura Council decision during the vote on the draft laws within the Constituent Assembly.