Narratives of Strife

On February 21, the Tunisian Security Council, in the presence of the President of the Republic, held an emergency meeting “to address the phenomenon of the influx of large numbers of irregular migrants from sub-Saharan Africa to Tunisia (…) with the violence, crimes and unacceptable practices it leads to.” According to the official Facebook page of the Presidency of the Republic, those are the very words of President Kais Saied. In that same statement, Saied adds: “This situation is not normal, and there is a criminal arrangement prepared since the beginning of this century to change the demographic composition of Tunisia. There are parties that received huge sums of money after 2011 to settle irregular migrants from sub-Saharan Africa in Tunisia. The undeclared goal of the successive waves of illegal immigration is to consider Tunisia a purely African country with no affiliation to the Arab and Islamic nations”.

With this brief statement, the Presidency has opted to adopt adverse narratives, ignoring others that may be more accurate and realistic.

In “Violence, Crimes, and Unacceptable Practices” lies that recurrent narrative that repeats itself almost everywhere in the world and holds immigrants, refugees, and displaced people responsible for every scourge society may suffer. The discourse adopted by extremists in Lebanon, for example, targeting Syrian refugees, is the same that tackles the Sudanese in Egypt and southern Sudan. Those adopting these views wish to forward the impression of defending the higher values ​​of society and its sublime morals. Yet, they have no problem exploiting these groups’ vulnerability by employing them with low wages. Consequently, the least that can be said about this narrative is that it is racist populism.

The presidential declaration does not stop there but goes further in promoting yet another narrative, using phrases such as “criminal arrangement,” “changing the demographic composition”, “settlement of immigrants,” and “receiving huge sums of money” in order to change Tunisia’s Arab and Islamic affiliation! We cannot know whether President Kais Saied has based his position on the security and political data that he possesses. Still, we cannot ignore that his discourse mirrors the racist Western speech, which claims that immigration will lead to a change in the cultural facade of the West, expressing at every opportunity its condescending views on all non-white communities.

We have not yet forgotten the racist language used by some Western media to describe the displacement of Ukrainians fleeing the war in their country. “Just to put it bluntly, these are not refugees from Syria (…) These are Christians, they are white (…),” said Kelly Cobiella, a correspondent for NBC from Poland, describing the displaced Ukrainians. Before that, CBS correspondent Charlie D’Agata, while covering the same topic, said: “This is not a place, with all due respect, like Iraq or Afghanistan (…) This is a relatively civilized, relatively European (…) city.” How can we possibly confront that racist speech when our leaders use it?

For example, “Al Ajsiyun” (an acronym in Arabic with the initials of the words “Africans, Southern, and Sahrawis”), an adjective invented by the Tunisian National Party to describe immigrants from countries south of the Sahara desert, similar to adjectives given to African-Americans in America or black people in the Arab region. Intentionally or otherwise, the statement of the Tunisian Presidency aligns perfectly with the racist narrative of the Tunisian National Party.

Needless to say, xenophobia is not exclusive to Tunisia. It has indeed pervaded almost all countries with the rise of fascist movements everywhere, notably spreading and raging in Tunisia at the beginning of the current year for several reasons, including the challenging economy that the country is facing. Social and traditional media have played a significant role in fueling these racist feelings. That is the prevailing narrative on the ground today, a narrative that holds “foreigners” responsible for economic hardships, looks down on them, and labels them as conspirators against society’s identity. It is curious that governments would adopt such a risky narrative that could lead to violence and civil unrest!

Where is the benefit, then, in promoting such hostile rhetoric against the citizens of sub-Saharan countries at a time when Africa is seeking to implement the ambitious project of issuing a unified African currency? Where does Tunisia’s interest lie in all that? Why does the state choose to adopt populist narratives while ignoring the fact that the major industrial countries’ exploitation of Africa’s resources (from America, through Europe, Russia, and China) and their immersion of African peoples in poverty and tribal conflicts lead to the migration of death-boats riders to Europe, turning Tunisia into a major transit country?

Why does the Tunisian Presidency ignore the results of the European colonization of Africa (which continues in several forms) as a primary reason for migration to the North, while the Tunisians themselves are victims of colonialism? Why does the government adopt a negative narrative that ignites primitive fanaticism and could create a political clash with neighboring countries? (The African Union condemned, in a statement, what came in Kais Saeid’s speech regarding African immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa, and some African countries organized flights to “evacuate” their citizens after being subjected to abuse in the streets.)
The answer to these questions may seem challenging, and if we tackled a broader frame than the Tunisian one, we would have to face questions with increased complexity.

Is the Tunisian Presidency trying to divert attention from the massive campaign of arrests of political opponents and members of the LGBTQA+ community by directing the anger of the street to imminent danger? How can a few thousand immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa threaten the identity of the society (the official number of legal residents does not exceed 21,500, while figures from governmental organizations refer to nearly 60,000 irregulars)? Are there other dimensions to the Presidency’s destructive narrative?

In 2016, the European Union established the “European Border and Coast Guard Agency, FRONTEX, an organization that aims to capture migrants at sea, training and equipping the security services of the southern Mediterranean countries to repel all migrants trying to board a “death boat.” Then, Europe’s pressure increased on Tunisia to accept the proposals of some of its countries, such as the proposal to sort the files of asylum seekers in Tunisia instead of Europe and host deported migrants. Could the Tunisian Presidency’s statement be linked to this file?

What is the reason behind using the discourse of such dangerous racist narratives? Perhaps the President is trying to exploit the wave of hostility to sub-Saharan Africans prevailing in Morocco and Egypt, playing on the ideas of some radical extremists from the “Afrocentrism” trend (recently, a concert by American comedian Kevin Hart, scheduled to be held in Egypt was canceled after a social media campaign against him claiming he belongs to Afrocentrism)?

Narratives that graze fanaticism are all menacing and destructive. They are based on ignorance and will attract vultures who exploit and divide people, taking control of them and their country’s wealth. The Tunisian Presidency’s racist narratives unleashed a wave of violence, arrests, and harassment on the streets against black people, pushing them to refrain from leaving their homes. Some were expelled, and some were absent from university classes. Others left the country, while those who stayed lived in extreme terror, noting that the violence included black Tunisians.

All these narratives lead to this horrifying result. So are there alternatives?
Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to adopt narratives reinforcing the attempts to raise the African peoples and support their independence and sovereignty over their stolen resources? Tunisia, the founding member of the Organization of African Unity, is expected to stand by the oppressed, strive to achieve solidarity among the peoples of southern countries, and go back to playing a civilized epistemological role that contributes to the well-being of all human beings. Tunisia must stand by people whose exploitation by the countries of the North nearly wiped them out of existence. Only narratives of unity, justice, love, brotherhood, and solidarity must be associated with Tunisia. This country must be the leader of the advancement in the Arab region and the African continent.

That is how we see Tunisia and how we like it to be: leading by example.

That land, which twice brought tears of joy to our eyes, once on the day of its independence and the other upon banning tyranny from its soul, merits all the beauty and nothing but beauty.