In Tunisia, a country that rose from the ashes of dictatorship during the Arab Spring, hopes of democratic progress were high. However, the rise of Kais Saied, the country’s president who came to power in October of 2019, has been characterized by troubling tactics that exploit racial divisions to consolidate his power.
In line with the tides of racial populism sweeping through North America and Europe, Saied has capitalized on a distinct brand of anti-Black racism and xenophobia to deepen his popularity and power. Consequently, exposing Black Tunisians and immigrants to racial violence stirred from the very top of government, manifested by presidential rhetoric, policy, and public rage.
One of the most nefarious strategies employed by Saied has been his manipulation of racial prejudices within Tunisian society. By subtly emphasizing divisions between Arabs and Black Tunisians, he taps into deeply ingrained biases that have persisted for generations. His rhetoric is interlocked dangerously between racist dog whistle and explicit bigotry, curating a climate where Blackness stands as a proxy for immigrant, placing a target on anybody and everybody whose complexion veers from the caricatured, fair-skinned (Arab) Tunisian. Saied's rhetoric paints a picture of Black Tunisians as outsiders as well, alien to the country's Arab identity and culture despite holding formal citizenship.
This deliberate ploy to sow division allows him to portray himself as the protector of an imagined Arab purity. A color of racial supremacy that flattens the eclectic tapestry of Arab identity; and adapts the “great replacement theory” peddled across Europe, North America, and settler colonial states beyond and in between to North Africa.
In February, Saied ordered security forces in Tunisia to enforce “urgent measures” against Black emigration, which he claimed was plotting to overtake the nation and make it “an African country that has no affiliation to Arab and Islamic nations.”
The charges created a racial binary. Arabs were indigenous, and Black people outsiders conspiring to change the nation into their image. This was anti-Black racism, but even more ominous, a strand of racism that revised the “great replacement theory” by orienting Arabs as the endangered, vulnerable minority and Black Africans the plotting settlers devising takeover.
The effects of Saied’s declarations were instant and ominous. The slur “Kahloush,” the local analog for the N-word, was mainstreamed. Local police ordered landlords to evict Black African residents summarily, driving masses into homelessness and refugees into de facto statelessness. Vigilante mobs, generally comprised of young men, openly attacked Black immigrants and citizens, enforcing the rage of the state by way of private hands.
This was anti-Black racism, climaxing in real time in Tunisia. Fanned primarily to deepen Saied in the seat of power.
Like established, and novel fronts of racial and religious populism ravaging nations like Sweden and India, Saied’s intent to stir the masses for political gain. Currently, there are only 21,000 Black immigrants in Tunisia out of a population of 12 million – less than 0.2 percent of the entire population. However, entrenched anti-Black racism in the North African nation facilitates Saied’s aim of producing a problem that does not exist, and mobilizing the rage of the people.
By pitting communities against each other, Saied deflects attention from pressing issues such as corruption, economic stagnation, and unemployment. Instead of addressing these systemic problems, he redirects public frustration towards vulnerable minority groups, fostering a climate of suspicion and animosity. This strategy not only consolidates his own power but also distracts from the urgent need for social and economic reform.
While Saied masterfully stokes racial divisions, he hypocritically claims to champion the cause of the oppressed. This selective solidarity is evident in his approach to racial justice issues. While he vehemently denounces racial discrimination abroad, he conveniently overlooks the systemic racism that Black Tunisians face at home.
Rather than promoting policies that uplift marginalized communities, Saied uses their struggles as a tool for political expediency. He exploits the narratives of racial injustice, paying lip service to the need for equality while taking little substantive action. This performative activism allows him to project an image of a progressive leader while sidestepping the structural changes required to dismantle racial hierarchies.
Another alarming aspect of Saied's utilization of race is his weaponization of racism against his political opponents. By framing opposition voices as foreign agents seeking to undermine Tunisian sovereignty, he capitalizes on long-standing fears of external interference. This divisive tactic not only discredits his adversaries but also stifles legitimate criticism and dissent.
Saied's deployment of racialized narratives to quash opposition reflects a dangerous trend towards authoritarianism. By labeling dissenting voices as unpatriotic or disloyal, he consolidates his power and dismantles democratic checks and balances. In this way, Saied employs racial divisions as a means of silencing those who seek to hold him accountable, undermining the very foundations of democracy.
Under the guise of preserving national security, Saied exploits racial fears to consolidate his authority. He presents himself as the savior of the Arab identity and culture, framing his actions as necessary measures to protect Tunisia from perceived external threats. This tactic not only perpetuates racial biases but also perpetuates a climate of fear and suspicion.
By nurturing these anxieties, Saied legitimizes an expansion of executive power, eroding the separation of powers and further centralizing authority in his hands. This concentration of power not only undermines democratic institutions but also creates an environment ripe for abuse and repression. The illusion of security that Saied constructs ultimately serves as a smokescreen for the erosion of civil liberties and human rights.
The veneer of Arab pride imposed through weaponized anti-Black prejudice. This is Saied’s formula for deepening control over a nation where the memory of a united revolution is fading into a distant, unrecognizable past.
Khaled A. Beydoun is a law professor at the Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor School of Law, and author of The New Crusades: Islamophobia and the Global War on Muslims. Follow him on his socials at @khaledbeydoun.