A bill submitted to the Assembly of People's Representatives—which has become little more than a rubber stamp for the executive branch—aims to abolish the election of university presidents and replace them with administrative appointments decided by the Minister of Higher Education. Behind the argument of "efficiency," many see a new episode of power centralization.

The text proposes amending Article 15 of Law No. 19 of 2008 on higher education, as revised after 2011, in order to end the principle of election by peers and entrust the appointment of university presidents to the ministerial authority, following a call for applications. The term of office would be limited to two periods.

On paper, the reform appears technical. In reality, it is highly political.

Post-2011 achievements called into question

The election of university presidents was not a procedural detail. It was one of the symbols of university autonomy established after the revolution.

Decree-Law No. 31 of 2011 introduced this mechanism to break with the tradition of vertical appointment that prevailed under the former regime. The aim was to embed a fundamental principle in university practice: academic independence requires governance chosen by the scientific community itself.

Returning to administrative appointment amounts to reversing this logic. The debate cannot be separated from the law.

The 2022 Constitution affirms that the state guarantees academic freedom and supports scientific research. Although the current constitutional text is more centralizing than that of 2014, it does not authorize the political control of institutions of knowledge.

University autonomy is not a favor granted by the executive branch: it stems from the principles of freedom of teaching, freedom of research, and the neutrality of academic institutions.

However, entrusting the appointment of university presidents to ministerial authority raises an obvious question: how much real independence can there be when the academic leader owes his position to a political decision?

Strong opposition from academics 

The General Federation of Higher Education and Scientific Research, affiliated with the Tunisian General Labor Union, denounced a "serious setback" and a return to a logic of loyalty rather than competence.

The criticism is clear:

• The proposal does not address chronic underfunding,
• nor the mass exodus of teacher-researchers,
• nor the collapse of infrastructure,
• nor the precarious situation of doctoral students.

However, it does shift the center of gravity of power. In other words, we are not reforming the crisis in higher education, we are reforming the way it is controlled.

The "efficiency" argument 

The promoters of the text cite dysfunctions: lack of coordination with the ministry, slow decision-making, internal electoral rivalries.

These difficulties exist. But in comparative public law, the response to the imperfections of a democratic mechanism is not its abolition—it is its improvement.

In most European university systems, the election or participatory selection of leaders remains the norm. Direct appointment by the central executive is the exception and often a legacy of authoritarianism.

A political signal 

Since 2021, several elected or autonomous institutions have seen their status changed or weakened. The current proposal comes at a time when the concentration of decision-making power has become the norm.

The university was one of the last places where a significant internal elective practice remained.

The question therefore goes beyond the academic sphere: can we claim to guarantee academic freedom while at the same time depriving the academic community of the right to choose its leaders?

A decisive battle 

The proposal has not yet been adopted. It will have to be examined in committee and then in plenary session. But the debate is now open.

He contrasts two visions:

• An autonomous university, capable of self-governance, even if it means correcting its imperfections.
• A university integrated into the administrative hierarchy of the state.

In a country where institutional balances have changed profoundly in recent years, the issue is not only a legal one.

It is symbolic.
It is political.
It concerns the place of knowledge in relation to power.