Professor Roy: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia. In your opinion, which of these three countries is experiencing the most complex political moment? 

To tell the truth all three of them, including Morocco, although it could seem more stable. Algeria is addressing President Bouteflika’s succession, which is actually something like a “permanent” transition. Political management processes in Algeria are not public but take place in the shadows. That said, Algerian society is a lively one, debating with passion both national as well as international political issues.
In Tunisia, the democratic transition has been a success and, in spite of all the criticism that could be aimed at this country’s leaders, it did it, even though the extremists – both secularists and radical Islamists, feel unsatisfied and are excluded from politics.
Tunisia’s problem is an economic one and therefore non-political and it also lies in jihadist radicalism involving a virulent minority fuelled by these social-economic problems.

This minority does however make the difference if one considers those volunteering to join Da’ish (the Arabic acronym for ad-Dawla al-Islāmiyya fī al-ʿIrāq wa l-Shām, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), especially if one considers that Tunisia has only about ten million inhabitants.

Well, there are two aspects. It is true this is the country that exports the highest number of militiamen after Saudi Arabia. These are people mainly coming from the south and the abandoned peripheries. I would say, however, that it is a problem shared by Tunisia and Western countries. The parents of these boys, because they are young and very young boys, do not understand the choices made by their children; they reject them. So, just as in Europe, it is not the population as whole that is radicalised, but just a few young people. So I would say that this is a sign of Tunisia’s Europeanisation and not the opposite.

So, according to this analysis, Morocco would appear to be the most solid country…

Yes. There is political continuity thanks to the monarchy which “lowers the tones.” But society moves continuously and is in perpetual evolution. Firstly it has changed from being an agricultural society to an urban one and, furthermore, previously most citizens were illiterate and are now definitely better educated. Then there is the king, who appears in public less and less, and therefore it is the court that really governs.

What is the relationship between the Maghreb and Europe at the moment?

The two societies are increasingly merging. There are millions of people from the Maghreb who live in Europe and hundreds of thousands with dual citizenship. There are Tunisian MPs in the French and Italian parliaments. I would say that we are in a post-migration situation. There are no longer hundreds of thousands of citizens from the Maghreb wanting to come to Europe, but rather people wishing to circulate in both directions with young second-generation immigrants who return home. They are no longer people fleeing war, nor are they hungry refugees. They follow the best economic conditions wherever these may be. Furthermore there are many who are bilingual and this too is a sign of compenetration.
In political terms, I would say that European politicians have not understood these changes and continue to have very restrictive visa policies that end up causing illegality.

What relations are there between Maghreb countries?

There is no solidarity at all. There is no coordination between the countries of the Maghreb. There is still rivalry, for example, between Morocco and Algeria, and Europe does not address this issue.
Then there is the issue of Islam, which no one addresses. Morocco and Algeria respectively believe that Islam in Europe should be the Islam of their countries. Hence the dean of the mosque in Paris is appointed by Algiers, while Morocco trains Imams of Moroccan origin. It is a competition. Everyone forgets, however, that a new European Islam is forming, one that differs from the original one. It is seen with diffidence by all the Maghreb’s authorities, because it is influenced by European societies’ secular ideas, but still it is Islam.
At the same time, the Protestant Evangelic Church is expanding in Algeria. And it does so openly with permission from the authorities. The phenomenon of conversions is an interesting one.

Will Russia and French intervention in Syria have repercussion in these three countries? And in Libya?

Libya follows a Middle Eastern logic and therefore the answer is probably yes. The others will not experience repercussions. The problem is the interface, hence Tunisia, which fully suffers the consequences of the Libyan crisis.
I would therefore speak of a “disconnection” between the Maghreb and the Middle East. For example, before the ‘Arab Springs’ one saw large pro-Palestinian protests in the various countries of the Maghreb. And in Cairo too. There was still a vague pan-Arabic sentiment.
This no longer happens. And, on the other hand, who should young Moroccans or Algerians identify with? The Kurds? The Shiites? With Assad?
This does not prevent a few Tunisians from joining up, but it is following a Middle Eastern logic, not a Maghreb ideal.
President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s Egypt is preparing to hold its first general election since 2012. At the time, a year after the deposal of Hosni Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood won and a little later it also won the presidency with Mohammed Morsi.

What about the October 18th elections? Les jeux sont faits?

Yes, absolutely yes. There will be no freedom of choice. Everything has already been decided. We have come to a dictatorship that is the most terrible in Egyptian history.
They wish to eradicate the Muslim Brotherhood. But in addition to the human rights problem, there is also a political one. How can one create a general front against the Shiites excluding the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a movement included in the political life of many other countries, such as, for example, Jordan and Morocco. This encourages the young to become jihadists especially when there is an economic crisis.

Turkey too is preparing to hold a general election at the end of October. It is the second election in just a few months.

The outcome of the Turkish elections will not change anything, the results will be more or less the same. The only coalition possible is one between the AKP (Justice and development Party) and the MHP (the Nationalist Movement) and therefore it is a declaration of war against the Kurds. The civil war will be resumed.
It is necessary to understand that President Recep Tayyep Erdogan has become paranoid following the case involving (Fethullah) Gülen, which was a shock for him.
In the West we allowed ourselves to be deceived a little. Gülen is portrayed as a Muslim humanist. This is not true, he has founded a movement that is involved in politics, a sect that penetrates every sector of the state.
In this sense I prefer an Erdogan who holds elections, to a sect infiltrating all state institutions. Now he has become paranoid and is obsessed with the openly expressed intentions of the PKK to create a state in Syria and achieve independence in Turkey. This is effectively the negation of years of negotiations. Erdogan’s reaction is violent and has led the country to the brink of a civil war, while instead, over the past twenty years, economic development in Anatolia had included the Kurds just as they had demanded.

Ankara’s claim to Brussels therefore could be explained with three factors: i.e. Migrants, Kurdish ambitions and Russian aggression. Was this understood in the West?

For the Americans and the Europeans, enemy number one is Da’ish. Support for Turkey, which is a member of NATO, will not be denied in name of the Kurds.
Or, let us say, there will be a differentiated form of support. Kurds outside Turkey will receive support but those in Turkey will not.
It is a delicate situation. It is out of the question that Turkey will become a member of the EU at current conditions, so I think that there must be bilateral Turkish-European cooperation that is more ambitious than what exists now for a joint management of the border, immigrants and their joint reception together with the UNHCR.
This is difficult because Ankara is diffident of the United Nations, but there is room for negotiations. Everyone has something to ask.

Translated by Francesca Simmons