From valiant Carthaginian warriors, our rulers have turned us into beggars. Of course, the primary responsibility is that of Nidaa, Ennahdha and all those who have participated in the looting of the country since 2011. But is democracy the problem or is it rather the men who have led it astray?
Socrates considered voting as a skill acquired through knowledge, wisdom, in the management of a country. He brings up the example of the Ship of Fools, which is piloted by the strongest sailor, except he is slightly deaf. Every sailor believes they have the right to lead, though they all have no training and believe that navigation cannot be taught. So they drug the captain, rebel against him and take over the ship, after which they start eating and drinking and exhaust their provisions.
Elevating the most popular of them to the position of captain, they don’t even consider whether he is qualified for the role, or whether they should choose someone who is mindful of the winds, stars, and seasons. They don’t understand “the union of authority with the art of the steer” .
Desperately looking for a good helmsman
Socrates thinks that the truly competent pilot would be considered worthless in this mismanaged system. In the same way, he believes that democracy would lead people to choose popular but unqualified leaders, while qualified leaders would be marginalized…
When a man is sick, whether he is rich or poor, he must go to the doctor, and he who wants to be well governed must choose the one who is really capable of it.
The leader cannot be legitimized by the opinion of the majority (often wrong and manipulated opinion due to the ignorance of the population in political matters and the buying of votes), since no one acquires political science by the simple fact of being chosen by the majority.
A people doped up by the consumer society and not even having the means to satisfy its desire for accumulation cannot be wise enough to choose a leader. These people only want to be bought, in dinars, in baskets of pasta and chocolate bars.
It is therefore easy to conclude that Socrates was right, that democracy without growth, without purchasing power and without collective wisdom quickly reaches its limits and gives way to anarchy, oligarchy or tyranny.
Now, when we consider how difficult it is to keep a newly conquered state, we can be surprised at Kais Saïed’s choices, even if he was logical with himself by surrounding himself with people he trusted in a environment of corruption and terrorism.
The current phase of security stability is perhaps a success that must be recognized, but the people want more, by finding the base of Maslow’s pyramid, which they had known under Ben Ali or Bourguiba, namely economic development minimum that allows citizens to work in their country. And for this he does not need incompetent relatives, but skills that cannot be found in the first circle.
The incompetent at maneuver
It is not a trivial thing for a ruler to choose his ministers, who are good or bad according to whether he is more or less wise himself. Also, when you want to appreciate your ability, it is first through the people around you that you judge it. If these are faithful and skilful, it is always presumed that he is wise himself, since he knew how to discern their skill and assure himself of their fidelity; but we think of it quite differently if these people turn out to be faithful but not very skilful, if not mediocre.
Machiavelli distinguished “Three orders of mind, namely: those who understand by themselves, those who understand when others demonstrate to them, and finally those who understand neither by themselves nor by the help of others. The first are the superior spirits, the second the good spirits, the third the bad spirits. If Pandollo was not of the first order, certainly he must have been at least of the second, and that was enough; for a prince who is in a position, if not to imagine, at least to judge what another does and says, good and bad, knows how to discern the good or bad operations of his minister, favor some, repress others. , leave no hope of being able to deceive him, and thus restrain the minister himself in his duty… When the prince and the minister are such as I say, they can deliver themselves to each other with confidence:
In Tunisia, I doubt that the citizens have a particular affection for their ministers or all those who appear on TV. Tunisians know very well that the majority of these showmen want the place of the caliph for their personal enrichment and in no case to be at the service of the people. However, the economic record of Saïed after two and a half years of reign is the bankruptcy of the country and more debt for the future generation.
There are dozens of solutions to find the few billions we need without calling on the International Monetary Fund (IMF). If you don’t know how to do it yourself, you call on those who know.
The IMF punishes the cicada that we are
The leaders in place want to keep at all costs their privileges as ministers, salaries and various advantages… but they also forget that the people will one day ask for their heads, when they will no longer find flour, sugar or petrol.
The IMF is not there to help but to punish the cicada that we are. Its European and American shareholders will benefit from 4% interest paid by the Tunisians.
The 1.9 billion dollars that will be granted will not be intended for investment, the creation of wealth, the relocation of factories in our country because we would be closer to a source of gas (Algeria )… No, the money from the IMF will still benefit the importers of Chinese, European and other products, and the Algerians, who will sell us their hydrocarbons.
It is perhaps time to review all the trade agreements, especially with the European Union which puts so many phytosanitary, ecological and other barriers in front of our exports and prevents us from doing the same vis-à-vis their products.
Tunisia must be reformed at the microeconomic level, but this work of analysis and proposal, the IMF does not want to do. However, this is where the heart of the problem for our economy lies: the cadastre is not up to date; court decisions for disputes take years depriving the state of precious revenue; customs laws are totally obsolete and contradict each other, paralyzing import and export; there are thousands of laws to review but no one has enough courage to launch the necessary reforms.
The oil shock of 1973 took 12 to 18 months to be felt throughout the world, but today Tunisia is already in difficulty while the world is not yet in recession.
Waiting all these months to finally sign this weak agreement with the IMF shows the intellectual mediocrity of the Tunisian negotiators. And to believe that the head of government will succeed in collecting the necessary funding from the Gulf countries and the former colonial power is to show great naivety.
Foreign states are not altar boys. And when it comes to money, they have no heart. They talk about war, strategy, immediate benefits, etc.
President Saïed is trying to buy time when time is his worst enemy. We must act quickly, run faster than the markets, reform quickly and anticipate bad ratings from agencies. But he still hasn’t understood that time is money and that, in the meantime, the very money of Tunisians risks going abroad.
