The Turks of Tunis, confronted with a more stable and more firmly based civilisation, gradually became absorbed into the Tunisian population… the Turks nevertheless failed to impart any fresh impetus to the age-old Maghrib. In one as in the other, Berber inertia won the day, so that at the beginning of the nineteenth century the entire Maghrib was living… in accordance with standards that had held for thousands of years, and without having been able to evolve in the direction of statehood in its modern form.

This narrative of Tunisian history aligns nicely with conceptions of North Africa, or the Maghreb, as backward, intransigent, and immune to progress that have been espoused by various thinkers, including Charles Julien, quoted above. However, Tunisia has produced highly original and dynamic thinkers like Ibn Khaldun, so how could it be that these thinkers developed in a cultural vacuum of “Berber inertia?” The simple answer is that this view says more about the prejudices of the times and places in which it was advanced than it does about North Africa. Indeed, similar conventional wisdom persists, as the widespread shock at the Arab Spring illustrates. In order to understand the Tunisian piece of the Arab Spring, it is vital to look at the Tunisian constitutional movements of the 19th century, and specifically at the work of their progenitor Khayr al-Din al-Tunisi. As a group of newly elected constitution writers are preparing to draft a new Tunisian constitution, this is a timely opportunity to look at the historical legacy they inherit as they seek to derive a new framework for organizing their society in accordance with what Montesquieu might call the “spirit” of their laws.

After giving a brief historical sketch and biography of Khayr al-Din, this paper will provide a summary and constitutional analysis of his sole work of political theory, the introduction to his book The Surest Path. In particular, it will examine his arguments in favor of reforming and modernizing the state in order to make it more independent and less vulnerable to Western encroachment. Amongst these are his contention the Islamic history has a long tradition of borrowing the best ideas from other cultures, and that this tradition in large part explains the early successes of the Muslim empire. Next, his reformulation of various Islamic terms will be assessed for their meaning in the context of constitutional governance. These include a dramatic expansion of the idea of shura, or consultation, which can be interpreted largely along liberal democratic lines, and also his attempt to reconcile the need to adhere to a timeless shari‘a while still allowing for the state to keep pace with new political and economic developments in the wider world. This argument by a practicing statesman against ossification and in favor of a dynamic Islamic state is one with relevance and resonance that demand it receives the careful scholarly attention it deserves.