Calm in the eye of the storm
I’m in Atlanta, poll-watching for the Georgia Democratic Party. I’ve done it in Egypt, Libya, Albania, and elsewhere, but never before in the US. We own a house in Atlanta down the street from elder son Jared and his family. But no, we are not moving here. We are only trying to view the election from a more interesting angle than DC. There more than 90% of the population will vote Harris.
Roving
I am an “outside” poll watcher for Fulton County (Atlanta) early voting. The county is deep blue, not red. “Inside” poll watchers need to be credentialed for a specific polling place and can do it only there. That means six or seven hours per day for two weeks inside the same place. I don’t envy them. Credentials are not needed for outside poll watchers, who don’t enter the polling place except to visit the toilets.
I’m being used as what the State Department would call a “rover.” I go wherever the county Voter Protection chief, Melissa, sends me. That is mostly to places where the Democrats lack coverage. Fulton County is big–I’ve had to drive as much as 25 miles from my house. Traffic is horrendous, but patience and Googlemaps get me there in my 18-year-old Honda Fit.
What I do
My task is to look for issues and incidents. I do this mainly by approaching voters as they leave the polling place to ask how things went. Did they need to wait in line? For how long? Were things running smoothly?
So far, the answers have all been cheery and positive. People here are really happy after voting. Only one of the six polling places I’ve visited had a line. That one was less than a half hour wait. That line was gone an hour later. Everywhere else, people have been voting in less than five minutes or so.
Near some polling places, police sit discreetly in patrol cars, away from the main entrance. None of those I encountered had seen any problems. The few election workers I’ve run into likewise report no difficulties. I haven’t even had a complaint about a misspelled name or one missing from the voter roll. Georgia allows open carry of long guns. I haven’t seen any.
I also haven’t run into any Republican poll watchers. Maybe some are inside the polling places I’ve visited. It would be interesting to hear their impressions.
Value added
I report my lack of incidents and issues dutifully on an app as well as by text to Melissa. She reminds me that a good day in voter protection is a boring one. My value added is providing notice that things are okay at and near polling places where her coverage is spotty.
I’ll continue my roving for the next two weeks or so. I don’t imagine it will all be as uneventful as the last two days. But there is no way of knowing. The press is reporting record early voting turnout so far. That bodes well for the Democrats, who have encouraged people to vote early. But of course I have no idea how the people I talk to vote. And no real sense of how the rest of Georgia will tilt.
I’m in the eye of the storm. It’s calm here, until it’s not.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A true conservative would vote Harris
I don’t have a lot of Republican friends. That’s true. But for those Republicans I know identity is the reason for their attachment to that party. One was born into a family in Arizona in which no one had ever voted for a Democrat. Another, an otherwise first-rate political analyst, simply believes what Republicans say and doubts what Democrats say. He puts the burden of proof on his opponents.
Neither of these colleagues has ever before supported across-the-board tariffs or deportation of immigrants. They both pride themselves on not being racists. Yet they will vote for a candidate who wants to impose broad tariffs and deport millions. Trump is also a confirmed white supremacist and has promised to restrict minorities from moving to the suburbs. Republican identity trumps [pun intended] their policy preferences. It shifts the burden of proof, so here are some proofs.
The domestic issues
To be fair, traditional Republicans are in a difficult spot. The Republican party they knew and loved favored lower taxes and high defense expenditures. It has evaporated. Trump’s Republican party favors lower taxes only for the truly wealthy and abandonment of defense obligations.
Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush welcomed immigrants. Trump blames them for crimes they haven’t committed, as he did for the Central Park five. He wanted them executed, which is what he wants for immigrants who kill “Americans.” The five, all Black, were innocent.
Traditional Republicans do have reason to dislike Kamala Harris’ policy proposals. They fear extra spending for her housing, healthcare, education, and other “social” programs would explode the deficit. But they should be aware that the data is clear. Trump did that, even before the COVID-19 epidemic. Her spending proposals will have to pass in Congress. Trump’s promise of tariffs he can levy without Congressional approval
There is a decades-long history of lower percentage debt increases under Democratic than Republican presidents:
This is at least in part due to Republican control of one or both Houses of Congress. That’s a good reason for a Republican debt hawk to vote for some down-ballot Republicans. But it is not a good reason to vote for Trump.
Foreign policy
On foreign policy, the situation is even clearer. Both Trump and Harris are hawkish on China and protective of Israel. But Trump reached a trade agreement with China that Beijing didn’t implement. He did nothing to respond. The trade agreement also cost the US budget a great deal due to related agricultural subsidies. They continue. Trump would back Israel to the hilt. Harris wants to rein it in, provide humanitarian assistance to Palestinians, and prevent a wider war.
Trump has threatened to abandon allies in Europe and to end support for Ukraine. Harris backs the NATO allies and Kyiv. Most NATO members are now fulfilling their 2024 NATO commitment to spend 2% of GNP on defense. The big jumps came under Biden, after the Russian expansion of the Ukraine invasion. They did not come under Trump. Allied solidarity in supplying Ukraine has helped to counter Russia’s expansionist impulse and reduce the threat to other “frontline” states.
Putin’s Russia is an expansionist, imperial power trying to correct what it regards as history’s mistakes. If Moscow wins in Ukraine, it will try again in Moldova and eventually Poland and other former Soviet satellites. It is not exaggerating to say Ukrainians are dying to prevent Americans and Europeans from fighting.
Trump has encouraged South Korea and Japan to think about getting their own nuclear weapons. That he thinks would reduce US commitments in Asia. It is a truly bad idea, as it would leave Asian security at risk of a nuclear confrontation. The US would not control the outcome.
Trump has signaled he would not help defend Taiwan. China will take advantage of that signal. Biden’s expressed willingness to support Taiwan has arguably forestalled a Chinese effort to take it over.
If you are a true Republican, vote Harris
Half of Trump’s former cabinet secretaries are not supporting his re-election bid. Nor is his Vice President, about whose safety during the January 6 riot Trump was unconcerned. Former Vice President Cheney, a staunch conservative, and his also conservative daughter Liz are voting for Harris. So too is Mark Milley, Trump’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, along with hundreds of other retired generals. Milley regards Trump as “fascist to the core.”
Preventing Trump from doing what he has pledged to do should outweigh any remaining identity issues. A true Republican would vote Harris.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Israel is its own existential threat
Last October’s Hamas attack on Israel was horrendous. It frightened Israelis more than any other single incident for decades. The numbers of Israelis killed were greater than those killed in the five years of the second Intifada. Hamas and its partners took more than 250 hostages to Gaza, more than 70 of whom are now dead. Several thousand Hamas fighters entered Israel in a well-rehearsed attack that Israeli intelligence operatives detected. Their superiors paid little attention.
But October 7, 2023 was not an existential threat to the Israeli state. Israeli citizens, both Jewish and Arab, responded spontaneously and quickly. The Israel Defense Force was slower and disorganized. It took the IDF three days to push all the Gazan fighters back into the Strip. Gazan fighters penetrated at the farthest about 15 miles into Israel. Most of the targets were much closer than that to the Gaza border:
Al Aqsa flood was not an existential threat
Hamas’ intent was to kill and capture as many Israelis as possible. The attackers were brutal and cruel. I’ve seen no evidence they cared whether their victims were Jews or Arabs, who can be difficult to distinguish. Many of the Jews came from peacenik kibbutzim near the Gaza border.
The operation likely succeeded beyond Hamas military leader Yahya Sinwar’s wildest dreams. Israel’s border was penetrated as it had never been penetrated before. The attack shook public confidence in the country’s intelligence and military. The cruel killing and raping of civilians infuriated Israelis. Fear and distrust in Israel spiked. Gazans celebrated.
But the Israeli state was never in danger. It is not even clear what that means. A few thousand fighters were not going to take Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. Hamas might have killed more Israelis and taken more hostages. It might have destroyed more kibbutzim. It might even have tried to hold on to territory for a few more days. None of that would have destroyed the Israeli state.
Netanyahu’s escalation is real
If last year’s attack was not an existential threat, this year’s conflict with Hezbollah and Iran is. That threat is the result of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s decisions. He has ignored American and other pleas for a ceasefire and prisoner/hostage exchange in Gaza. His government also refuses to prepare for the “day after.” He prefers to continue the fight there indefinitely.
Additionally, he has widened the war to the West Bank. There both the IDF and the settlers are chasing Palestinians from their homes:
Netanyahu has also widened the war
Netanyahu has also widened the war to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran. Israel succeeded in killing and maiming thousands with its cellphone/walkietalkie attack in Lebanon. It also succeeded in assassinating Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps leaders in both countries. Those successes far exceeded the usual tit for tat. They have led to escalation.
Iran’s large rocket and missile attack 10 days ago failed to kill Israelis or to destroy strategic assets. But it penetrated Israeli defenses and no doubt taught the Iranians more about what they need to do to succeed. Israel’s Defense Minister Gallant is now threatening a more robust response:
In contrast, our attack will be deadly, pinpoint accurate, and most importantly, surprising – they will not know what happened or how it happened. They will just see the results.
We’ll have to wait and see what this means.
Where might this end?
The spiral will be difficult to end without disaster. Hezbollah was initially an easier target than Hamas. Israel compromised the cell phones and walkietalkies its fighters and leaders use. But the ground war in Lebanon is a tougher grind, as is the continuing fight with Hamas in Gaza. The IDF has had to return repeatedly to areas in Gaza where Hamas has again popped up. Israel has lost more than 700 soldiers in the Gaza war. Another 40 or so have died in Lebanon.
Israel has already destroyed upwards of 70% of Gaza’s housing and killed more than 40,000, the Hamas Health Ministry says. Netanyahu is threatening to do in Lebanon what the IDF has already done in Gaza:
Why would Lebanese take advice from Netanyahu on their future?
The current level of destruction all but guarantees chaos in Gaza. It will do likewise in Lebanon if the war there continues.
Netanyahu aims to eradicate Hamas, upend the political system in Lebanon, and change the regime in Iran. Some in Washington have bought into those possibilities. But few who know Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran well think Israel can be the much-needed agent of change. Hamas and Hezbollah control vital social service networks that guarantee popular support. The Iranian regime has successfully resisted several popular uprisings. Bombing is notoriously ineffective at bringing about political change. It is more effective at mobilizing people to rally around the flag.
The more likely outcome
The more likely outcome of Israel’s multi-front war against its very real enemies is hatred and chaos. Hatred and chaos next door are not something Israel should be facilitating. America knows something about local resistance from Iraq and Afghanistan. Good intentions failed to counter the Taliban or bring stability to Iraq. But there withdrawal was an option. Gaza and Lebanon are Israel’s inevitable neighbors. Iran is its greatest security threat. Netanyahu has made Israel’s military success its own existential threat.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Public servants for now and the future
Here is an interview with Patricia Thomson, former Executive Vice President of the United States Institute of Peace. She has spent most of the last ten years devoted to the School of Public Service in Juba, South Sudan.
You are the founder of the School of Public Service at the University of Juba in South Sudan. You called for its establishment more than ten years ago, and eight years ago you and I discussed its successes and challenges, Since then, South Sudan has experienced continued internal conflicts, as well as a civil war in Sudan, its northern neighbor, that has impacted South Sudan’s oil exports.
Update
Q: Please update us on what the School of Public Service has been able to accomplish. Has it been able to function effectively? How many graduates are there? Where are they working?
A: Thanks, Dan. It’s hard to believe over ten years have passed since we first began lobbying for the school in 2013. We admitted our first class in August 2015, and since then the School has continued to operate without disruption; this despite South Sudan’s ongoing conflicts and widespread economic instability. We have an eight-year track record of success, and hundreds of graduates working across the government of South Sudan, as well as with a wide-variety of international and nongovernmental organizations [IOs and NGOs].
Q: Are your graduates making a difference?
A: Yes. Not only are they leaders, they are change agents – positively impacting their organizations, as well as the thousands of people those organizations serve. In a recent poll of alumni, over 95% of respondents reported that the School gave them valuable skills that have significantly improved their ability to both manage and lead.
Looking forward
Q: Looking forward, what are the main educational priorities of the School?
A: SPS is a graduate school. We’ve designed the core program, a Master in Public Policy (MPP), for people who already have technical skills acquired through their undergraduate education and some real-world experience – teachers, engineers, financial manager, healthcare providers. We help them develop leadership, management, and policy-making skills. This has been our priority to date.
But we are now entering a new period of development (our more technically inclined staff call it SPS 2.0). During this phase our priorities include women and NGOs, two groups vital to the development of the country. We’ve already mobilized two programs. The Leadership Crucible is a year-long program for undergraduate women interested in politics and public service. The NGO Initiative is a center of learning and research that recognizes the vital role NGOs play in developing the country, as well as in providing services to its citizens.
I’m particularly excited about the NGO Initiative’s first program, the NGO Management Certificate. This year-long program for both current and prospective NGO managers enables them to continue to work while studying with us.
We are also developing specialized MPPs. So, in addition to our current degree – an MPP with a Concentration in Leadership and Management – we are mobilizing an MPP with a Concentration in Environmental Policy. We are also considering degrees in Public Finance, Education Policy, and Health Policy. I really hope to foster more cross-disciplinary collaboration at the University – the MPP with a Concentration in Environmental Policy is a collaboration between SPS and the School of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies. So…lot’s going on at SPS…
Challenges
Q: It’s been a tough decade for South Sudan. How are its challenges impacting the School?
A: Yes, it has been a tough decade. Since independence South Sudan has suffered from internal conflicts, natural disasters, and kleptocracy. Patronage systems, facilitated by easy access to oil money, probably limited violent conflict, but also diverted funds from development and camouflaged the country’s deep ethnic and political divides. Now one of the biggest issues is the impact of the war in Sudan, particularly on oil revenue.
To get oil to international markets, South Sudan is completely dependent on two pipelines running through Sudan, and one of these pipelines hasn’t been working for months. The value of the pound has plummeted, the cost-of-living has increased, and the government is struggling to pay its bills. All of this impacts the prospects for long-term peace and development.
So, what does all this mean for SPS? South Sudan has always underfunded public service. Now things are even worse. For example, public servants, including our staff, haven’t been paid for almost a year. Obviously, that impacts our ability to fulfill our mission – although I am constantly amazed by our team, who remain committed to SPS and continue to show up. Since about half of our students work in government, the funding situation also impacts enrollment. When your employer isn’t paying salaries, It’s hard to pay tuition.
Financing
Q: So how are you addressing this lack of funding for staff and for tuition?
A: We highlight the non-financial benefits of working for a university (the gravitas that comes with the position, the ability to do research and to develop emerging leaders). More importantly, we allow staff to consult or to have a second job. We are also working with the university and others to secure outside funding to supplement staff salaries, as well as to fund scholarships. Finally, we are fundraising for an endowment.
Q: An endowment? Talk more about that?
A: We are calling it the Endowment for Public Service Leadership. $2 million will cover the cost of a Professor of Public Leadership and 40 scholarships every year for 25 years. Like all endowments, the original funding will be invested. Each year, returns earned from the endowment will be withdrawn to cover the cost of the scholarships and the endowed professorship. A trust located in the United States or Europe will oversee it.
Funding the program this way has several advantages. First, the programs involved will continue to have access to reliable stable funds for the life of the endowment. Second, the funding will grow without the need for additional contributions. Finally, the endowment can be placed in reserve when necessary. For example, if classes are suspended due to an emergency, the interest that would have been spent to run the program will be left in the endowment. It will continue to grow until classes resume or the money can be re-purposed. Endowments are a well-tested funding model. But they are still unusual in much of Africa. Once proven, I hope the model will be replicated.
Q: Forty scholarships for 25 years for $2M, that’s hard to believe?
A: I know (laughter)! Two million is enough because tuition is so low, currently $1000/year. SPS offers such great value. Exchange rates are a source of much discussion here in Juba. Instead of converting dollars to pounds, I find myself converting to number of scholarships. For example, if the average salary of an expat working for an international NGO or the UN is about $110,000, that’s the equivalent of 110 SPS scholarships. The World Bank recently approved $15M for an institution-building project in South Sudan. That equates to 15,000 scholarships – 400 years worth.
School leadership
Q: You gave up your position as Dean of the School. Why did you do that? Do you still think it was a wise decision?
A: Absolutely. Dr. Anne Itto, a freedom-fighter, political party leader, and former Minister of Agriculture took over from me. When she left to represent South Sudan in the East African Legislative Assembly, Dr. Paul Atem took over. He has experience as a state minister and as an advisor to the national government. He also has a PhD in Planning from the University of South Australia.
Two alumni ably support Dr. Atem: the Deputy Dean, Elia Makur and the Registrar, Michael Nhial Mabil Koak. I continue to believe that the School of Public Service is a national institution of which South Sudan can be proud. It should be led by a South Sudanese. And I like the sound of Dean Emerita (smile).
Values
Q: Do you see South Sudan’s tribal conflicts reflected in the School and its functioning? If so, how has that been handled?
A: It hasn’t been too much of a problem, but when tribal biases do emerge, we see it as a learning opportunity. Better to address them and try to change mindsets than pretend they’re not there. We also try to manage them through the School’s culture, as reflected in our core values. We take these very seriously. They’re not just aspirations. They guide our day-to-day conduct. They are integrated into our training, evaluations, and decision-making.
One of them, teamwork, centers on a shared commitment to build the nation and to not let tribal differences become divisive The actual language of this core value is “We find strength in diversity, and unity in a shared commitment to build the nation; we do not let tribal, regional, or political differences become divisive. We also collaborate and help each other succeed.”
International community contributions
Q: How has the international community helped or hindered development of the School? What could they do to support the School?
A: Historically, we haven’t been aggressive in seeking outside support. International aid isn’t intended to be on-going, and we’ve wanted to ensure the School is self-sustaining. But as we enter this next phase, and given the economic situation, we’ll need partners. So, glad you asked.
Here’s a wish list:
- funding for the Endowment that we discussed earlier;
- scholarships for the NGO Management Certificate program;
- support for women, including funding for the Leadership Crucible;
- funding for a Legislative and Executive Leadership Center – where legislators, legislative staff, Undersecretaries, and Directors General can learn through reliable, recurring, professional training programs;
- funding for a local and state government program- something like the Bloomberg Cities Leadership Initiative; and
- support for a Center for Applied Statistics to address the country’s serious gap in statistical skills.
Support doesn’t always mean funding. Technical expertise can also be really helpful. For example, experts on-loan can help us develop our Masters in Public Finance and our MPP in Environmental Policy. The international community has amazing models that we can leverage. SPS is modeled on some of the world’s best graduate schools, including Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.
Politics and public service
Q: South Sudan is rated “not free” by Freedom House. How have your educational objectives been affected by politics and less than democratic governance?
A: I believe the School is valued by South Sudan’s leaders across the political spectrum. To my knowledge, they have never interfered with our programs. Our focus is on building “technical” skills – leadership, management, policy-making – not on South Sudan’s current politics.
That being said, students often debate the current situation. During these debates, we try to get them to be forward-thinking, to draw on theory and the experiences of other countries, and to hone their critical thinking skills.
No matter who’s in charge, cadres of skilled public servants are essential to sustained peace and long‐term development. Who will implement all the provisions of the country’s peace agreements, all the initiatives included in the Revised National Development Strategy? Success requires a large number of skilled leaders to plan, budget, and manage all these efforts…for decades. Unfortunately, few leadership programs exist for public servants, and they are fragmented. Even fewer programs exist for NGO and IO staff, although they do much of the country’s development work. SPS’s mission is to fill these gaps, and to develop a strong cadre of public servants for now and the future.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee
So many people issue have written so much in response to October 7 and its aftermath! It is difficult to imagine saying anything new or even interesting. But after much hesitation I will discuss one issue: the difficult choice Arab Americans face in voting this year.
It had seemed to me that Arab American voters would come around to my perspective, so there was no need. But polling suggests that isn’t happening in the numbers I’d like. So here are some unsolicited views on why Arab Americans should vote for Harris, not Trump.
The Trump record
The Trump record on Israel is unequivocal. He called himself “the best friend Israel ever had in the White House.” But that isn’t correct. He was a best friend to the Israeli right. He gave them a lot of what they asked for:
- withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal,
- approved annexation by Israel of Syrian territory in the Golan Heights,
- moved the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem,
- closed the Jerusalem consulate that functioned as an embassy to the Palestinian Authority (PA),
- cut funds for the PA,
- closed the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) office in Washington,
- rejected the claim that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal,
- cut the humanitarian and other assistance to Palestinians administered by the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA),
- offered a take it or leave it pro-Israel peace plan,
- withdrew the US from the UN Human Rights Council because of its criticism of Israel, and
- sided with Israel against the International Criminal Court’s investigation of alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank.
Trump would do next what he did before
It’s hard to say for sure what Trump would do next. He hasn’t said much. He knows it would cost him critical votes in Michigan, Wisconsin, and elsewhere. But his advisers are the same people who established the record above. That suggests Trump would give unconditional support to Prime Minister Netanyahu to do whatever he wanted to do. A vote for Trump will condemn innocent people in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran.
Maybe all one really needs to know is that Trump is Netanyahu’s favored candidate. Israel’s Prime Minister has stiffed many of Biden’s efforts to moderate his offensive in Gaza and reach a ceasefire agreement. Netanyahu also rejected Biden’s pleas not to expand the war to Lebanon. That is not only because the Israeli Prime Minister wants the war to continue so he can stay in power. He also doesn’t want to give Biden any goodies before the election.
The Jewish vote
Trump is frustrated that his vigorous pro-Israel stance doesn’t get him more Jewish votes:
That’s at least in part because many Jewish Americans dislike what Netanyahu is doing as much as Arab Americans do. Many Jews were horrified at what happened October 7 but recognize that Israel is behaving unjustly. In Gaza, it has sought revenge rather than justice and ignored the civilian toll. It has also rejected reasonable proposals for a ceasefire and prisoner/hostage exchange. In the West Bank, Israel is allowing and even encouraging settler violence against Palestinians. In Lebanon, it is destroying civilian infrastructure and killing people who have nothing to do with Hezbollah.
Most Jewish Americans want what most Israelis want. That is a ceasefire in Gaza and an exchange of prisoners and hostages, as well as a Palestinian state. Sixty-eight percent of Jews voted in 2020 for Biden. I would guess more will vote for Harris this November.
Jews and Arabs should be voting together
Jews will vote for Harris agreeing more with Arabs right now than at many times in the past. Arab American supporters of Hamas and Hezbollah are few and far between. Many understand that Hamas’ brutality on October 7 gave Israel motive and opportunity to brutalize Gaza. Hezbollah has participated both in a corrupt Lebanese political system and a war against civilians in Syria. Its rocket attacks on Israel likewise gave Israel motive and opportunity. But Arab Americans, like American Jews, want the wars to stop.
What troubles Arab Americans most is that Biden has not compelled Netanyahu to agree to a Gaza ceasefire. It troubles me as well. But I am convinced that Harris will have a far better chance of succeeding than Biden. Netanyahu will know that he faces at least four more years of her. If Trump is elected, it will mean four more years of a license to kill.
It’s time we all wake up and smell the coffee. Some have already done so. Emgage Action has endorsed Harris in a thoughtful and comprehensive statement. Harris has not promised the squeeze on Israel’s military supplies many would like. But she is clearly more sympathetic to Palestinian needs than Trump. Not voting, voting for a third party candidate, or voting for Trump, would be a serious mistake. Jews and Arabs who want peace in the Middle East should vote for Harris.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
No to boycott, yes to Tunisia
I’m late to publishing this appeal from the Tunisian opposition, as the election is tomorrow. But there is still time to go vote:
After five years of President Kais Saied’s term, including three years of absolute and individual rule, and after an objective assessment of this period in which Tunisia has experienced its worst conditions since independence—marked by the sharp decline in citizens’ purchasing power, the increase in poverty from 23% to 33% according to official figures, the exacerbation of daily hardships in areas such as transportation, healthcare, water and electricity shortages, and the loss of essential goods like food and medicine, and mounting internal and external debt.
After three years of systematic destruction and dismantling of constitutional institutions that protect the state from disintegration and chaos, and safeguard citizens’ rights.
In the face of the current president’s, Kais Saied’s, inability to solve the economic and social problems, his failure in projects such as penal settlements and recovered funds allegedly meant for poor regions, his failed health cities initiative (Kairouan, Kasserine, and Sidi Bouzid), and the failure of his community enterprises to create jobs for the unemployed, which instead became a waste of public funds.
After he has monopolized all powers in the country since July 25, 2021, imprisoning most of his opponents from various political factions, mistreating them and their families, and attempting to impose a policy of silencing dissent by prosecuting all voices calling for freedom, democracy, respect for the constitution, and the law—politicians, judges, lawyers, journalists, unionists, bloggers, and ordinary citizens under the infamous Decree 54.
After the Electoral Commission rejected most candidacy files with unreasonable and arbitrary conditions, and after the Commission refused to comply with decisions of the Administrative Court’s General Assembly, which cannot be appealed, that ordered the acceptance of the appeals from candidates Mondher Zenaidi, Abdellatif Mekki, and Imed Daimi and required the Commission to include them on the list of presidential candidates.
Law professors, civil society components including organizations, associations, parties, and national figures, have unanimously agreed that the stance of the Electoral Commission constitutes a scandal and a reprehensible act punishable by law as it undermines the state of institutions and eliminates the last bastion protecting rights and freedoms, namely the judiciary.
Despite Kais Saied’s insistence on ruling, his pressure, and intimidation of judges to exclude serious competitors from the electoral race, and prosecuting them using a non-independent and non-neutral Electoral Commission fully under his command.
After observing that candidate Ayachi Zammal remains in the race for the October 6 election,
And given the risk that boycotting the elections could lead to the continuation of the current situation, worsening from bad to worse, and the possibility of the state’s collapse by renewing the current president for another five years,
And following in-depth consultations and a realistic assessment of the current situation and available options, we concluded that Ayachi Zammal is the only remaining viable option among the accepted candidates, in the hope of pulling the country out of its current predicament and freeing it from the nightmare of authoritarianism and populism.
In order to save our country before it’s too late, by peaceful means and through the ballot box,
We, the undersigned, declare:
First: We call on all Tunisians to seize the opportunity for peaceful change by participating in the elections in large numbers and not to heed the calls for a boycott, which only serve the current president whose popularity has recently plummeted to such an extent that some polls indicate he may not even pass the first round.
Second: We call for a massive vote in favor of Ayachi Zammal, after his commitment to turn the page on the past, release all political prisoners, restore state institutions, guarantee the independence of the judiciary, and restore Tunisia’s standing in the international community.
Third: We call on all presidential candidates who continue to be excluded from the race to urge their supporters to vote for Ayachi Zammal as a means of saving the country.
RSS - Posts
