“Sunday’s coup had nothing to do with the virus. It was planned at a time when the virus was under control.”
True. However, one also needs to look at what social classes and social strata involved in the protests on the eve of the coup and what alternative to the 10 years of political instability and worsening of living conditions the leaders of the coup have.
Is the situation in Tunisia unique and isolated from the global crisis and not structurally connected to the weak capitalism and the ‘unpatriotic’ bourgeoisie–be it Islamic or secular?
Can a small, poor country with very limited resources escape the domination of and dependence on powerful states–regional and Western–and international capital?
David Hearst speaks about the involvement of the United Arab Emirates. But is it disingenuous from him to ignore the involvement of other regional powers, including Qatar.
There is nothing constitutional about Qais Saied’s coup
In May, the country started talks with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on a financial assistance package, which if accepted would be the fourth loan in ten years from the fund.
The austerity measures asked for by the IMF in exchange for previous loans - including increasing prices on basic goods, hiking taxes and reducing public sector employment - further enraged a public already squeezed by the neoliberal reforms implemented by Ben Ali.
The powerful General Labour Union (UGTT), with more than one million members representing an estimated five percent of the Tunisian population, also did not explicitly reject Saied's decisions, but rather emphasised “the need to adhere to constitutional legitimacy in any action taken at this stage”.
Many countries around the world denounced Saeid's actions and expressed their concerns about the future of democracy in the country - though most stopped short of labelling what happened a "coup."
Comments