In December 2010, a fruit vendor in Tunisia set himself on fire. Weeks later, the dictator fled. The Arab Spring began. Fifteen years on, Tunisians are back on the streets. This time, they are confronting the president who dismantled the democracy that uprising created. Most analyses blame one man: Kais Saied. He suspended parliament in 2021. Now he rules almost unchecked. But Saied is a symptom. My argument is simple. Tunisia’s democracy collapsed because it never delivered the economic dignity people sought in their uprising. Tunisians did not reject democracy itself. They withdrew their support from a system that failed to improve their lives. If that is right, they should have little enthusiasm for Saied’s new system, and they should turn on him once he fails to deliver too. As this post shows, that is exactly what has happened.

A Warning for Young Democracies

Tunisia stands as the sole success story of the Arab Spring, proving that democracy can take root in the Arab world. However, Tunisia’s collapse warns all nascent democracies: free elections and a robust constitution alone are not enough. The protesters of 2011 demanded jobs, freedom, and dignity. Democracy rapidly delivered freedom, bringing fair elections, press freedom, and a new constitution in 2014. Jobs failed to materialize. According to World Bank data cited by Freedom House, the unemployment rate stood at 15% before the pandemic and climbed to 17.8% by early 2021. Youth unemployment, ages 15–24, reached 40.8%. The political establishment offered no real solutions. Administrations changed, political parties traded blame, and corruption scandals persisted. Sharan Grewal of the Brookings Institution notes that Tunisia was severely undermined by economic stagnation, perceptions of corruption, and growing disillusionment with political parties following 2011. Voters evaluate a system based on whether their lives improve, yet for many, democracy seemed like a stage where elites squabbled while daily life became increasingly difficult.

The Strongman Arrives

Saied ran for president in 2019 without the backing of any political party. A retired law professor, he campaigned on a platform of political reform and achieved an overwhelming victory. The vote at the time was not a rejection of democracy itself; rather, it was an expression of resentment toward the established political class. A 2026 country report by the Bertelsmann Stiftung attributes his rise to economic uncertainty and growing distrust of political parties. The pandemic served as a pivotal catalyst for this trend. On July 25, 2021, Saied suspended parliament and dismissed the cabinet. Few Tunisians opposed these moves. Shadi Hamid and Sharan Grewal note that U.S. officials perceived these actions as enjoying broad public support. This was because many Tunisians had grown weary of the infighting between parliament and political parties, which failed to offer solutions amidst a collapsing economy. This is the crux of the story. His consolidation of power succeeded because ordinary citizens were willing to tolerate a pause in the democratic process if it promised tangible results. But tolerance is not endorsement. What they wanted was relief from a failing political class, not permanent one-man rule. The later evidence supports this: when Saied’s new system asked for their participation, most stayed home, and today many are protesting against him.

The Strongest Counterargument

Some scholars point to the design of the institutions themselves as the root cause of the problem. Tunisia’s 2014 constitution distributed power between the president and the prime minister. Professor Grewal of the Brookings Institution analyzes that this system of power-sharing led to political gridlock, resulting in a power struggle among Saied, the prime minister, and the speaker of parliament. From this perspective, the resulting deadlock paved the way for Saied’s rise to power. There is merit to this argument; flawed institutions exacerbated the crisis. However, the argument has a shortcoming. Many democracies survive despite political gridlock. The deadlock in Tunisia proved fatal because it failed to deliver tangible changes that citizens could actually feel in their daily lives. Had jobs been created, voters likely would have tolerated the chaotic political landscape. Ultimately, institutions set the stage, but economic conditions determined the public’s response.

Saied’s Dismantling of the State System

Having seized power, Saied moved swiftly. The constitution he introduced in 2022 weakened parliamentary authority, curtailed judicial independence, and concentrated power in the hands of the president. A recent analysis notes that these moves align with a typical modern pattern: leaders dismantling democracy through legal amendments rather than by deploying tanks. The public response was telling. Hardly anyone turned out to vote. Another study indicates that voter turnout for the general election in late 2022 was a mere 11%. This reflected political fatigue rather than a desire for a strongman leader. The October 2024 election was already rigged; electoral authorities had disqualified numerous prominent rivals. According to Al Jazeera, Saied won with 90.7% of the vote, amidst a turnout of 28.8%, the lowest since the 2011 revolution. Opposition figures were imprisoned. In November 2025, an appeals court upheld prison sentences ranging from five to 45 years for 34 opposition members.

The Twist: Failure to Resolve Economic Issues

A president who rose to power on the back of economic grievances ought to be judged by his economic performance. So, what does his report card look like? It’s dismal. According to an Al Jazeera commentary, by the summer of 2026, Tunisians were suffering from frequent power and water outages, a healthcare system unable to supply even essential medicines, and purchasing power that had plummeted to its lowest level in years. Many view emigration as their only escape, even at the risk of a perilous sea crossing. Now, that anger is boiling over. Grewal reports that shortages, exacerbated by a record-breaking heatwave, are fueling discontent, presenting the most serious challenge Saied faces. In July, crowds in Tunis staged protests marking the fifth anniversary of his consolidation of power. Saied warned that the state would deal sternly with anyone exacerbating the situation. Note the sources of this outrage: water, electricity, and the cost of living. The very grievances that sparked the 2011 revolution are now fueling resistance against the man who promised to resolve them.

Democracy Has to Deliver

The story of Tunisia is often framed as a clash between champions of democracy and an autocrat. Yet, this perspective overlooks what the majority of citizens truly desired: a functioning state. For a time, they believed democracy would deliver such a state. When it failed to do so, they ceased to defend it. That is why the title holds. Tunisians did not reject democracy. They rejected a democracy that left them jobless and ignored, and they gave the next man who promised relief the benefit of the doubt. Now that same standard is being applied to him. This is an uncomfortable lesson for proponents of democracy. Freedom of expression and fair elections are vital, but they do not sustain themselves. A democracy that cannot show citizens a better daily life leaves an opening for someone who promises one. Tunisia has demonstrated this, and Saied is now learning the same lesson from the opposite side.