اخبار تونس- وطن نيوز

اخر اخبار تونس اليوم – اخبار تونس العاجلة

W6nnews.com  ==== وطن === تاريخ النشر – 2026-06-29 21:16:00

Introduction: Territorial development between technical reference and political bet: The Territorial Development Document, as one of the reference documents for the 2026-2030 development plan project, is of special importance because it presents the vision proposed by the state to reorganize the territorial space and achieve development among the various regions and regions during the coming years. It is not limited to diagnosing the reality of regional development, but rather seeks to establish a new conception of planning based on spatial justice, progressive planning, and the appreciation of territorial particularities. These are principles presented by the draft plan as an extension of the political orientation adopted by the current authority, which is based on the concept of the social state, as an alternative to the development method that has ruled the country over the past decades. From this standpoint, reading this document should not be limited to evaluating the quality of its diagnosis or the soundness of its proposals, but rather it must also question the extent of its consistency with the political reference on which it is based. To the draft plan, and the extent of its ability to translate the stated principles into practical policies that can be measured and implemented. The regional development document is not just a technical text, but rather a political document that reflects the state’s perception of its role in achieving development and redistributing its opportunities among territorial areas. First: an accurate diagnosis of spatial imbalances… but without an evaluation of the policies of the existing authority: There is no doubt that the first thing that draws attention in the document is the breadth and accuracy of the diagnosis. It clearly acknowledges that development disparities between regions have not declined despite the multiplicity of public programs and projects, and that the ranking of states and delegations according to development indicators has remained almost constant, which means that public policies have not succeeded in changing the country’s development map. The document also indicates the continued disparity in access to basic services, and the concentration of investment and wealth in a limited number of territorial areas, with internal regions remaining less able to attract investment and create jobs. However, this diagnosis raises, on the other hand, a very important methodological problem related to the political context in which the document was issued. It is not only a document prepared by a new authority in order to present an alternative program or evaluate the outcome of previous ruling systems, but rather it is part of a draft development plan prepared by a ruling system that has been in power for years and has become directly responsible for a significant portion of the public policies that contributed to shaping the reality that the document describes. Therefore, the continued adoption of a language based primarily on diagnosing imbalances and attributing them, explicitly or implicitly, to the legacy of previous policies, makes the document sometimes seem closer to the opposition’s discourse than to the discourse of an authority that bears the responsibility of governance. This does not mean denying the cumulative nature of regional imbalances or holding the current authority responsible for a reality that has formed over decades, but rather it means that rational public planning requires distinguishing between the development legacy that the state inherited and the outcome of the policies that the existing authority adopted during the years of its management of public affairs. The longer the period of exercising government, the more the authority becomes required to move from criticizing the past to evaluating its own policies, recognizing what has been achieved and what has not been achieved, and explaining the reasons for success and failure. However, the document does not include a clear assessment of the outcome of recent years, and does not specify the impact of the reforms and new institutions that were approved during this period in addressing regional disparities, which deprives it of one of the most important elements of strategic planning, that is, an objective evaluation of public policies before proposing new policies. Second: From the discourse of the opposition to the discourse of the state: The absence of self-criticism in the planning document: This methodology reveals a fundamental paradox in the argumentative construction of the document. On the one hand, the document confirms that it represents a break with the previous development model, and that it establishes a new phase based on the social state and spatial justice, but, on the other hand, it bases a large part of its discourse on continuing to question the past and holding it primarily responsible for the existing imbalances. There is no dispute that these imbalances are the product of a long historical path, but the continuation of this logic after years of exercising power raises a question about the limits of the transition from opposition discourse to state discourse. After the authority becomes the holder of political, legislative and executive decisions, it is no longer sufficient to explain failures with the legacy of the past, but rather it becomes necessary to hold accountable the policies that it itself has adopted, and to measure their impact in changing the reality whose imbalances the document acknowledges are continuing. From this perspective, it is noted that the document exercises a detailed criticism of the previous development model, but it does not exercise to the same extent a self-criticism of the public policies implemented in recent years. It does not ask, for example, about the reasons for the continued faltering of public projects despite the institutional changes that the country has witnessed, nor about the impact of the investment and financial policies that were adopted during this period in reducing spatial disparities, nor about the extent of the success of the new options in achieving the goals that were set from the beginning. This results in a kind of imbalance in the distribution of responsibility. The past is given a wide space for interpretation, while accountability for the present is absent, as if the authority that prepared the document stands outside the subject of evaluation, even though it has become a major party in public policy making and its results. This trend reflects the predominance of the mobilizational dimension over the discursive construction of the document. The discourse does not limit itself to providing a technical diagnosis of regional disparities, but also seeks to maintain the duality of “a past responsible for the crisis” versus “a future that holds promises of reform,” without going through the basic station imposed by every strategic planning process, which is evaluating the current experience and drawing lessons from it. The reality is that the social state, if it is to be more than just a political slogan, requires that spatial justice be coupled with an institutional culture based on transparency, accountability, periodic evaluation of public policies, and recognition of failures before announcing new programs. Therefore, the absence of this dimension not only weakens the evaluative value of the document, but also limits its ability to persuade, because it calls for a break with the policies of the past without providing a critical review of the path of governance that preceded the preparation of this plan, a path for which the current authority has become directly bearing political and administrative responsibility. Third: Strategic planning as accountability for public policies is not merely a forecast of the future: This criticism gains additional importance because planning is not just a forecast of the future, but it is also an exercise of accountability. Strategic documents in comparative experiences do not only begin with diagnosing reality, but rather include a clear evaluation of previous policies, including policies implemented by existing governments, considering that acknowledging mistakes represents an entry point to correcting them. When this dimension is absent, the document turns from a tool for evaluation and planning into a tool for justifying political options, and the discourse becomes closer to preserving the legitimacy of power by recalling the failures of the past, rather than establishing a new legitimacy based on taking responsibility for the results of governance and committing to correcting them. This absence gains greater importance if we recall that the draft plan presents itself as an embodiment of the concept of the social state. The latter is not only based on a declaration of commitment to social and spatial justice, but is also based on the principle of accountability and bearing responsibility for the results of public policies. It was expected, in line with this perception, that the document would include a critical review of the experience of the past years, and that it would precisely determine what promises related to spatial justice have been achieved, what has remained stalled, and what are the real reasons for this. As for simply presenting the imbalances without evaluating the impact of the policies implemented in recent years, it turns the diagnosis into a one-directional practice, focusing on criticizing the legacy more than practicing self-criticism, which weakens the document’s consistency with the principles declared by the draft plan. Fourth: A comprehensive approach to development that is dominated by description rather than structural analysis: The document, however, is credited with going beyond the narrow economic approach, as it presents spatial development as a multidimensional issue, linking the economy, society, environment, and governance. It addresses the conditions of basic services, infrastructure, employment, training, natural resources, climate change, and the dispersion of administrative structures, reflecting a modern conception of development as a complex process. However, this comprehensiveness does not hide the dominance of the descriptive nature in the analysis. The document provides an important number of indicators and statistics, but it does not delve into explaining the structural reasons that led to the continuation of imbalances, nor does it adequately discuss the nature of the economic model that produced them. Fifth: Investment between the logic of the market and the state’s social requirements: This observation emerges clearly in addressing the investment problem. The document explains the weak development in the internal regions mainly by limited private investment, the complexity of administrative procedures, the difficulty of accessing real estate and financing, and weak infrastructure. These are factors that cannot be denied, but limiting themselves to them reproduces the logic that governed previous development policies, which considers improving the business climate to be the main gateway to achieving development. However, if the social state actually represents the frame of reference for the plan, the fundamental question becomes different: Can the achievement of spatial justice be left dependent on the decisions of private investors, or is the state required to be the primary investor in less attractive areas, and to make public investment a tool for redistributing wealth and opportunities between territorial areas? Sixth: Spatial justice…a present slogan and absent mechanisms: This observation leads to a deeper problem related to the concept of spatial justice itself. The document repeats this concept in more than one place, and makes it one of the goals of the plan, but it does not translate it into clear commitments or measurable indicators. It does not set minimum rates for public investment for the benefit of the least developed regions, does not propose mechanisms to redistribute financial resources between regions, and does not establish quantitative indicators on the basis of which the extent of reducing territorial disparities at the end of the plan period can be assessed. In this sense, the concept of territorial justice remains closer to an initial declaration than to a well-defined public policy. Seventh: Valuing local particularities and the limits of betting on internal capabilities: The document also gives great importance to valuing local particularities and the internal resources of each region, which is a positive trend in principle because it goes beyond the traditional view of regions as mere spaces in need of support. However, this perception implicitly assumes that all areas have the same ability to mobilize their resources and attract investment, an assumption that is not supported by the facts, given the historical disparities in infrastructure, human resources, markets, transportation networks, and public services. Therefore, betting on internal capabilities alone may lead to reproducing the same disparities instead of addressing them, unless accompanied by strong policies to redistribute resources and public investments. Eighth: Bottom-up planning between institutional ambition and ambiguity in the distribution of powers: On the other hand, the document confirms the adoption of bottom-up planning and assigning a greater role to local, regional and regional councils, as spaces for participation in drawing up development policies. However, it does not sufficiently clarify the limits of the actual powers that these structures will have, nor the nature of their relationship with the central authority, nor the financial resources that will be placed at their disposal. Hence, bottom-up planning, in its current form, remains closer to an organizational principle than to a real institutional transformation that redistributes power in the field of planning and decision-making. Ninth: The Document Paradox: Advanced Diagnosis and Traditional ToolsThe document reveals, in the end, a fundamental paradox. It succeeds in diagnosing the regional development crisis, recognizes the persistence of territorial disparities, and adopts a discourse based on social justice, the social state, and a break with the previous pattern, but it does not provide, with the same clarity, the economic, financial, and institutional tools that allow these principles to be transformed into implementable policies. Indeed, some of the proposed solutions remain in the orbit of the same tools adopted by previous policies, such as improving the investment climate, valuing local resources, and enhancing coordination between stakeholders, without a radical redefinition of the state’s role in leading development and redistributing wealth between territorial areas. Conclusion: The social state is not built by slogans, but rather by a culture of evaluation and accountability: Accordingly, the scientific and political value of the territorial development document lies mainly in that it recognizes the existence of a real crisis in the development process and the persistence of territorial imbalances, except that Its most important drawback is the absence of a self-evaluation of the policies of authority that it prepared, and the failure to move from a discourse of criticism of the past to a discourse of questioning the present. After years of exercising governance, admitting mistakes and evaluating the outcome of public policies becomes part of the state’s responsibility, and not just a political choice. Therefore, building a social state is not only achieved by declaring the principles of spatial justice, but also requires establishing a culture of accountability, evaluation, and recognition of failures as a condition for correcting and improving policies. In the absence of this dimension, the regional development document remains closer to a declaration of strategic directions than to a comprehensive critical review that actually establishes a new development approach that breaks with the imbalances of the past and responds to the requirements of the present.