By Selim Jaziri, Mondafrique: In a brief statement published on May 21, the Ministry of Defense reaffirmed that the army remains neutral and denounced attempts to involve it in political disputes. The unusual communication has fueled conflicting speculation and raises a crucial question: how far will the military remain loyal to the political leadership as the crisis weakens the state and could destabilize the regime?
In a highly unusual move, Tunisia’s Ministry of Defense issued a statement Thursday evening reaffirming the army’s commitment to its “neutrality” and “independence,” while denouncing “the growing number of attempts to drag the military institution and its leaders into political controversies and escalation.”
No one was specifically named. The language was cryptic and carefully measured. The implications were significant, though not easy to decipher. The decision to mention such “attempts” at a time when Tunisia’s systemic crisis is becoming increasingly dangerous has only intensified speculation.
A Preventive Message
Since July 25, 2021, when President Kais Saied consolidated power, the political role of the military has been the subject of competing interpretations.
In Tunis, everyone has their own version. Some insist the military maintains its distance from the government. Others believe it actively supports it. Still others argue it quietly restrains and guides it behind the scenes. The military is often invoked as a safeguard against what critics view as the government’s drift toward authoritarianism, its inability to address the country’s multidimensional crisis, and its increasingly repressive course. Some opposition figures in exile explicitly include the military, alongside international partners and democratic political parties, in discussions about a future alternative to Kais Saied.
Former President Moncef Marzouki, now living in exile in France, released a video on May 17 calling on the military, the presidential guard, and security forces under the Interior Ministry to neutralize what he described as the “coup leader” Kais Saied.
Multiple and Contradictory Interpretations
According to pro-Saied media figures, including presidential supporter Riadh Jrad, the Defense Ministry’s statement was a direct response to such appeals, particularly Marzouki’s remarks. If so, the question remains: who was the intended audience? Was it directed at opposition figures seeking to draw the military into their political project? That is the most obvious interpretation.
Or was it a warning to officers who might be tempted to engage in such efforts? That reading suggests the possibility of internal disagreements within the institution, although it stretches the literal wording of the statement.
Some opposition voices have argued that the statement was actually directed at Kais Saied himself, signaling that the military is not at his service. This interpretation appears less convincing, given that the Ministry of Defense remains under the authority of the head of state.
As Tunisia faces growing financial strain, exacerbated by the global energy crisis triggered by the Israeli-American attack on Iran, the military appears to be emphasizing that it does not intend to become a participant in any political equation.
The absence of any reference to the president may be a way of indicating that its loyalty is not tied to any individual.
Several Intended Audiences
According to former Admiral Kamel Akrout, who is not known as a supporter of Kais Saied, the statement was primarily a proactive measure intended to show that the military would not align itself with any political faction during a period of crisis.
In this reading, the message was directed simultaneously toward political actors, military personnel, and the Tunisian public. To politicians: the military is not part of your partisan calculations. To soldiers: maintain discipline and do not allow yourselves to be influenced by outside forces. To the public: the military remains a pillar of security in an increasingly uncertain environment.
Human rights activist Kamel Jendoubi, currently living in exile in France, sees the statement as reflecting growing concern within the institution over how long it can support the government without becoming associated with any future historical discredit attached to it.
An Ambivalent Relationship with Power
How neutral is the military? One thing is clear: without its approval and active participation, Kais Saied would not have been able to seize full powers on July 25, 2021.
The image of an armored vehicle positioned in front of parliament, and a soldier preventing Speaker Rached Ghannouchi from entering the building, remains one of the most significant breaches of the military’s tradition of political neutrality since its involvement in the removal of Habib Bourguiba on November 7, 1987.
Even if the military’s operational role against Saied’s opponents was limited, that involvement remains controversial.
At the same time, the military has also played roles that did not necessarily align with the interests of the government.
Military intelligence investigations contributed to corruption cases involving senior officials.
During the 2024 presidential election, administrative judges were reportedly able to meet under military protection while challenging decisions made by the electoral authority.
These examples have contributed to differing views regarding the institution’s political role.
A Traditional Distance from Political Power
Historically, Tunisia’s military has not developed the economic interests that have encouraged military involvement in politics in countries such as Egypt or Algeria.
Its mission has traditionally focused on border protection within what was long considered a relatively stable regional environment.
Both Habib Bourguiba and Zine El Abidine Ben Ali deliberately maintained a relatively weak military to reduce the risk of a coup.
Although the military participated in suppressing unrest in 1978, 1984, and 2008, it generally acted as an institution subordinate to the state rather than as a force defending a specific regime.
Following the 2011 revolution, the military strengthened its credibility by supporting the democratic transition without directly intervening in partisan struggles or civilian affairs.
Even when former Defense Minister Abdelkrim Zbidi ran for president in 2019 while heavily emphasizing his military background, the institution itself avoided endorsing him.
America’s “Children”
Since the 1960s, Tunisia’s military has maintained close ties with the United States. Its equipment is largely American, and many of its officers have received training in U.S. military academies, developing lasting relationships with American counterparts.
These ties have deepened since 2011 and especially after 2015. The rise of regional instability and jihadist movements prompted Washington to further integrate Tunisia into its regional security architecture. Tunisia was designated a major strategic partner of NATO in 2015.
American assistance increased significantly, helping modernize the military and expand its capabilities. Military personnel numbers reportedly grew from approximately 30,000 to 90,000 over a decade. Tunisia regularly participates in U.S.-led military exercises in both the Mediterranean and Africa.
After July 25, 2021, some members of the U.S. Congress called for suspending aid to Tunisia in response to what they viewed as a coup and to encourage a return to democratic governance.
According to the article, the Pentagon opposed such efforts, arguing that Tunisia’s military remained a key strategic partner.
Although U.S. military assistance has declined since 2022, support continues through other channels, and the strategic relationship remains intact.
Unanswered Questions
As long as the current situation allows the military to preserve both the institution itself and the broader stability of the state, it has little incentive to support a change of regime, especially in the absence of a credible alternative.
However, important questions remain. Would this position hold if a severe financial and social crisis were to weaken the state and destabilize the government? How far would the military go in its loyalty to political power?
Under what circumstances might it become involved in the implementation of a political alternative?
The May 21 statement appears intended to prevent such scenarios from materializing, but it provides no clear answers to these questions. Nor does it answer a related one: at what point could political power itself become a threat to the state?
