Scan barcode
A review by lukescalone
A Rage for Order: The Middle East in Turmoil, from Tahrir Square to ISIS by Robert F. Worth
5.0
Really kaleidoscopic, Robert Worth is able to zoom in and out with ease. Most of these chapters emphasize a few individuals and a couple stories, which are then used to talk more broadly about individual societies. Although I can't properly evaluate a number of cases here, I thought Worth's treatment of Tunisia was particularly interesting. In that chapter, he analyzes the relationship between the late former president, Beji Caid Essebsi, and the leader of the Islamist Ennahda, Rached Ghannouchi, to see how a national dialogue was built and brought Tunisia out of its 2013-14 constitutional crisis. I'm going to use this review to talk a little bit about Worth's treatment of Tunisia.
Worth is truly sympathetic to both of these individuals, although I do get the sense that he prefers Ghannouchi. Ghannouchi is treated as an individual as committed to liberal democracy as he is to developing a more Islamic society. Essebsi, in contrast, as seen as a positive [although weaker] symbol of the old Bourguibist strain in Tunisian politics. To Worth, Rached Ghannouchi laid his entire political career on the line to safeguard Tunisian democracy and avert civil war, whereas Essebsi made a few less significant overtures and the Quartet merely mediated the affair. In large part, I do agree with Worth's treatment of Ghannouchi, but I think one failing he has is that by emphasizing the role of individuals, he misses the larger potential threat of Ennahda. At some point, Ennahda will need to move from collaboration to confrontation if it wants to maintain its role as a potentially generative force in Tunisian politics [for more on this shift, see Sarah Yerkes's and Zeineb Ben Yahmed's article here].
In addition--as much as I respect Bajbouj--I think Worth downplays the issues with his political history and the corruption in Tunisian politics. Take the critical role of Nabil Karoui, for instance, in arranging the series of meetings between Essebsi and Ghannouchi. As anyone who follows Tunisian politics knows, Karoui is corrupt as fuck and I don't doubt that Essebsi had a stake in Karoui's corruption. I don't have the patience to deal with Karoui here, but I will say that I'm glad he lost the presidency to Kais Saied last year.
Worth is truly sympathetic to both of these individuals, although I do get the sense that he prefers Ghannouchi. Ghannouchi is treated as an individual as committed to liberal democracy as he is to developing a more Islamic society. Essebsi, in contrast, as seen as a positive [although weaker] symbol of the old Bourguibist strain in Tunisian politics. To Worth, Rached Ghannouchi laid his entire political career on the line to safeguard Tunisian democracy and avert civil war, whereas Essebsi made a few less significant overtures and the Quartet merely mediated the affair. In large part, I do agree with Worth's treatment of Ghannouchi, but I think one failing he has is that by emphasizing the role of individuals, he misses the larger potential threat of Ennahda. At some point, Ennahda will need to move from collaboration to confrontation if it wants to maintain its role as a potentially generative force in Tunisian politics [for more on this shift, see Sarah Yerkes's and Zeineb Ben Yahmed's article here].
In addition--as much as I respect Bajbouj--I think Worth downplays the issues with his political history and the corruption in Tunisian politics. Take the critical role of Nabil Karoui, for instance, in arranging the series of meetings between Essebsi and Ghannouchi. As anyone who follows Tunisian politics knows, Karoui is corrupt as fuck and I don't doubt that Essebsi had a stake in Karoui's corruption. I don't have the patience to deal with Karoui here, but I will say that I'm glad he lost the presidency to Kais Saied last year.