Hegemonic Power from Colonisation to Colonial Liberation

Hegemonic power from colonisation to colonial liberation: A historical-analytical narrative of French colonial dominance over Tunisia from 1881-1956 and how it resulted in the Bizerte crisis of 1961

Leïla Inès Soukni

European Studies – Politics, Societies and Cultures Bachelor´s Degree 15 credits Spring 2020 Supervisor: Inge Eriksson Leïla Inès Soukni

Abstract This thesis studies how the colonial implementations of foreign rule in Tunisia by France between 1881-1956 caused and resulted in the Bizerte crisis of 1961 taking place. In 1881, Tunisia was invaded by France as a part of France’s colonial policy to expand its territory and power. The initial purpose was for France to gain the military-strategic geographical point in the middle of the Mediterranean sea; the city of Bizerte. This thesis follows the trajectory of France’s colonial dominance through a combination of descriptive research design and a historical-analytical narrative using the theoretical and epistemological concepts of hegemonic power, neo-gramscianism, post structuralism and world system theory to research the problem of how France’s colonial, hegemonic power affected their postcolonial relations and eventually consequenced in the Bizerte crisis of 1961. France’s colonial dominance gained them the position of hegemon and Tunisia the position of the subordinate. Through its colonial rule, France would implement its power over Tunisia that would result in the division of power between the states to be established. Once Tunisian independence was gained the distance of power between France and Tunisia would come to decrease as France’s direct rule had been removed. The transition to postcolonial relations would affect how France would influence its former colony and how the power over Tunisia by its former coloniser would change the hegemonic power dynamics between the state resulting in the Bizerte crisis of 1961.

Key words: Tunisia, France, colonialism, hegemony, world system theory, neo- gramscianism, poststructuralism, power

Leïla Inès Soukni

Table of contents Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………..2 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………4 Chapter one: Previous research, aim, research problem and the structure of the thesis…4 1.1 Previous research………………………………………………………...4 1.2 Aim………………………………………………………………………8 1.3 Research problem………………………………………………………..8 1.4 Structure of the thesis and delimitations…………………………………9 Chapter two: Theoretical and epistemological discussion………………………………10 2.1 Hegemonic power………………………………………………………10 2.2 Explaining colonialism and imperialism………………………………..12 2.3 World system theory……………………………………………………13 2.4 Neo-gramscianism……………………………………………………...13 2.5 Poststructuralism……………………………………………………….14 2.6 Defining and combining the analytical tools……………………………15 2.7 Methods and materials………………………………………………….16 Chapter three: An analytical narrative of the historical process of French colonial dominance over Tunisia and how it sequences in the Bizerte crisis of 1961……………18 3.1 Establishing colonial dominance……………………………………….18 3.2 Upholding the power……………………………………………………23 3.3 National liberation in the presence of a fading hegemonic power………26 3.4 Upholding forms of dominance in a post-colonial era…………………29 Chapter five: The remnants of France’s colonial hegemonic power & influence in postcolonial Tunisia……………………………………………………………………..33 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………35 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………….39

Leïla Inès Soukni

Introduction Since the early 15th century, a handful of European states established colonies across the other continents in order to expand their empires. The expansion began as a financial policy with the aim to increase the respective European state’s economy. Towards the mid 1800s, the colonial policies grew to be more than financial. The European authorities present in the colonies imposed their language, culture, beliefs and power, among other things upon the local and indigenous population (McKay et. al., 2015). On the African continent, France was one of the European states to colonise several different territories. Among them Tunisia, which was previously under Ottoman rule as the Beylical Regency of Tunisia. Tunisia was from 1881 under the colonial rule of the French until its independence in 1956 (Boularès, 2011, p. 674-679). After Tunisian independence, France still remained in control over the naval city of Bizerte, using it as a strategic point to continue control colonial Algeria. Bizerte remained important to France. In July, 1961 Tunisia were provoked by the French military organising a blockade on the naval port which triggered a four day long battle killing over 1000 Tunisians. In this thesis, I will conduct a combination of descriptive research and historical analytical study on the French and Tunisian colonial relations resulting in the Bizerte crisis. I will be researching how can we understand how France’s colonial, hegemonic power affected their postcolonial relations and eventually consequenced in the Bizerte crisis of 1961? The problem area is is related to the colonial hegemony that shaped France and Tunisia’s bilateral relations.

During France’s colonial rule in Tunisia, the French colonial authorities changed the names of several villages and cities throughout Tunisia. The new names were implemented to facilitate the preexisting names for French pronunciation, as another way of presenting their power over Tunisia, rather than integrating with the local population. (Khlifi, 2001, p. 11; Boularès, 2011, p. 499-503) In this thesis, the Tunisian names for the cities mentioned will be used as those are the names of the cities, as of the date of this thesis being written.

1.1 Previous research Using a qualitative and descriptive research design to conduct this research on the historical, colonial relations between France and Tunisia leading up to the Bizerte crisis,

Leïla Inès Soukni

I have chosen a collection of historical, political and biographical articles, journals and books by a collection of both Franco-European authors as well as Afro-Tunisian authors.

There has been quite a large amount of research regarding the colonial relations between Tunisia and France. It focuses on the historical implications of colonialism and the trajectory of its transition to postcolonial international relations. Most of the research and documentations have been made in France or Tunisia, the countries which the relations concern. The majority of the research that could be found is mainly in French and has been published in Tunisia and/or France. It is possible to access the material that is in French through international research databases compared to the few sources that are in Arabic which are only accessible through libraries in Tunisia. The research and documentation conducted and published in Tunisia is mostly in French, understandable as French is the second official language in Tunisia and has been since Tunisian independence. When Tunisia was a French protectorate, French was the first official language and was imposed on all bureaucratic levels, most often banning Tunisian Arabic to be used (Chadli, 2018). The French language has continuously been a language widely used in academia in Tunisia which is why the majority of the Tunisian research are also mainly published in French. This can make it difficult for non-French speakers to be able to conduct research about Franco-Tunisian relations.

However, it offers place in academia for the French and Tunisian perspectives to be highlighted, it offers information in the original languages, that the original documents do not have to be translated which can cause information to possibly be lost in translation. Other than the fact that most material regarding the colonial relations between Tunisia and France is in French, another fact is that the specific event of the Bizerte crisis is not widely known. Although it is a turning point in the relations between France and Tunisia as well as a turning point in the Algerian war of independence (1954-1962), there is a very small collection of books and biographies that are solely about what lead up to and what caused the Bizerte crisis. Some biographies and history books mention the event and the consequences, and how Tunisia’s colonial history and the Bizerte crisis often lands in the shadows of Algeria’s colonial history (Essebsi, 2017, p. 119-124; Boularès 2011). The fact that this event is not widely known internationally is why I believe that conducting this study is important. It will possibly be the first step to future research about the Bizerte crisis and the impact of French colonialism in one of France’s smaller colonies.

Leïla Inès Soukni

Many of these biographies that have been published in Tunisia, could only be published after the Jasmine Revolution in 2011. Most history books that are about Tunisia’s colonial history and the fight for independence that were written before 1987, the year Ben Ali performed a coup d’état, were banned from being sold. The books that were written about documenting Tunisia’s history and certain events during Ben Ali’s rule (1987-2011) had to be approved by his government (Boularès, 2011, p. 694-697; Chadli, 2018, p. 594-574). This is one of the reasons why the majority of the biographies about the Franco-Tunisian colonial relations that are being used in this thesis have either been published before 1987 or after 2011, or published through publishers in other Francophone countries. Those that have been published under Ben Ali’s rule (1987-2011) do not include debates or discussions that can be used to criticise Ben Ali, his regime, or how he ruled Tunisia nor compare him to Habib Bourguiba, the first president of Tunisia. Authors and politicians like Amor Chadli who wrote “Bourguiba, tel que je l’ai connu : La transition Bourguiba - Ben Ali” in 2011, and Habib Boularès who wrote “Histoire de la Tunisie : Les grandes dates ; De la préhistoire à la révolution” in 2011, and “L'agression française contre Sakiet Sidi-Youssef : les faits et les suites” written by Hédi Baccouche in 2008 have been uncensored, re-edited and re-published after the Jasmine revolution, presenting the information without any censorship from a dictatorship government. “Habib Bourguiba : Le bon grain et lívraie” written by Béji Caid Essebsi in 2009 has been re-published in several editions. This allows for this study to include information that would otherwise have been censored, if Tunisia had remained to be a dictatorship.

There are very few anglophone studies about Tunisia that have been published. The two books about Tunisian history that I have found are “A History of Modern Tunisia” written in 2004 and “Tunisia. Crossroads of the Islamic and European World” written in 1986 by Kenneth J Perkins, a professor in North African and Middle Eastern studies on state formation in relation to European colonialism at the University of South Carolina.

Most documentation and history books about French imperialism and colonialism are mostly about their largest colonies. France had several colonies across the world at the same time, during a time known as the Second French Colonial Empire from 1830-1980 (Aldrich, 1996). However, the largest and most important of the French colonies were Algeria, Vietnam, and Congo, who were considered to be inevitable and more important

Leïla Inès Soukni to France than Tunisia (Augeron & DuPless, 2010). This results in other, smaller colonies’ history often being not as researched and studied in an international context, resulting in less available information about other colonies such as Tunisia. Resulting in Tunisia’s colonial history not being as extensively studied internationally outside of France or Tunisia.

Additionally, the documentations of the Bizerte crisis, as a specific event, and the events directly related to it, such as the bombing of Sakiet Sidi Youssef which is a Tunisian village near the Algerian border, are not as internationally documented. The bombing of Sakiet Sidi Youssef and the Bizerte crisis are today remembered as two of the biggest tragedies in the history of modern Tunisia. Although this is the case, there is little information about the Bizerte crisis accessible if one is not aware of it, or reading about Tunisian history or French military conflicts. The subject is widely documented in Tunisia and in France as an event during the Algerian war of independence and how it would come to affect the war. (El Machat, 2005; Abis & Cordier-Féron, 2011)

When reading the material, which are mostly biographies or historical documentations, that are secondary sources based on official documents of the Bizerte crisis, there is a clear presence of different presentations and debates on the different perspectives depending on when and where the texts were published. One of the few debates that have been raised, is how the information of the Bizerte crisis has been documented. It is less of an argument about how the events played out, but more of a difference on how to approach the events and the understanding of the effects of France’s power on Tunisia. Depending on how we theoretically approach the material and the subject, we can study, analyse and understand it differently.

The books and articles about the history of Tunisia and France leading up to the Bizerte crisis will be used to present the historical context that will be the base for studying the implementation of colonial hegemonic power consequencing in the Bizerte crisis of 1961.

1.2 Aim There is very little research about France’s colonial hegemonic power in Tunisia and how the implementations affected Tunisia after independence which is why I have chosen to focus on studying the presence and impact of French colonialism in Tunisia. The aim is

Leïla Inès Soukni to present and study France’s colonial hegemonic power in Tunisia to create an understanding of how France came to reach it in Tunisia by implementing and practicing a French system in a foreign state, in order to rule and control it on a macro- and micro- level. The purpose is to study Tunisia as a French protectorate, how France’s colonial policy toward their Tunisian colony has come to shape the country, and to understand the postcolonial events that eventually lead to the Bizerte crisis in 1961. The aim is to present that in the shadows of the Franco-Algerian war, France still had control over their former colony of Tunisia, although fading, as they still held possession of the region of Bizerte using it for national interest. To incorporate hegemonic power, neo-gramscianism, poststructuralism and world system theory to discuss and analyse power between a hegemon and a subordinate with examples of historical events and relations. To present the colonial history of hegemonic power implemented by France in Tunisia and how it would come to shape the postcolonial relations and sequence in the Bizerte crisis. The primary focus lies on studying, understanding and researching the problem of how France imposed their hegemonic dominance in Tunisia and how by controlling Tunisia through military, judiciary, linguistic, cultural and social control.

1.3 Research problem This thesis will be a study about the research problem on colonial power. Focusing on the implementations of France’s colonial power in Tunisia and how it resulted in the Bizerte crisis of 1961. The implementations of power and how France reached hegemonic power over Tunisia will be studied and discussed in order to understand how the colonial implementations shaped the relations between Tunisia and France and how historical events come to affect the shift in power between the hegemon and the subordinate. Post structuralism and neo-gramscianism present power and hegemony differently but complement each other, and can be used as tools to study how power is divided between states during colonialism has resulted in our current world system.

I will be researching how France’s implementation of hegemonic power in colonial Tunisia and how it resulted in the Bizerte crisis and how it furthermore shaped the postcolonial hegemon-subordinate relationship between a core-state and a peripheral state.

Leïla Inès Soukni

The purpose is not to place blame on the historical trajectory of events as history, arguably, does not need any justification (Tosh, 2010, p. 29, 59-61). This thesis uses history to study how power has come to affect the relationship between a hegemon and a subordinate and how power is divided in said relationship.

1.4 Structure of the thesis and delimitations The structure of this thesis will focus on analysing the historical narrative of French colonialism in Tunisia between 1881-1961, ending with the Bizerte crisis. In order to conduct this study this thesis is divided into two parts presenting the theoretical and epistemological concepts and the historical analytical narrative. The series of theoretical and epistemological concepts will be applied to the historical analysis in order to understand how power possessed by one state over another state during colonialism has shaped the relation between the states. Furthermore, to understand how the colonising state reached hegemonic power over the subordinate colonised state through implementations of macro-level and micro-level power resulting in the Bizerte crisis in 1961.

Although colonialism and imperialism affected the majority of the world, this thesis will not focus on the international implementation of power, nor on France’s other colonies. During this time period, France had several other colonies, including Tunisia’s neighbouring state; Algeria. Although, Algeria’s colonial history with France influenced and affected Tunisia. However, I will not focus on Algeria and France parallel to Tunisian history other than the events that involve Tunisia as well in the trajectory following France’s implementation of power resulting in the bombing of Sakiet Sidi Youssef and the Bizerte crisis. This thesis will also not focus on other larger events in Tunisia as a French protectorate (1881-1956) that do not directly or indirectly consequence in the Bizerte crisis.

Chapter two: Theoretical and epistemological discussion To explain why and how the Bizerte Crisis of 1961 occurred, I will be using a series of concepts. The concepts are based of theoretical and epistemological approaches which will be elaborated on and defined in this chapter. The concepts and theories that will be in focus are hegemonic power, neo-gramscianism, post-structuralism and world system theory. These will be used in order to present and understand how France’s colonial

Leïla Inès Soukni hegemonic power hold on Tunisia sequenced in the Bizerte crisis of 1961, and how France’s hegemonic power still influences Tunisia, as well as how France is still the hegemon and Tunisia is the subordinate after the decolonisation of Tunisia.

International relations theory can be related to different epistemologies depending on what approach one wants to use on the subject that is studied.

Poststructuralism rejects the idea of the binary oppositions that create structure, and suggest that we surpass the binary structure. It suggests that we deconstruct it, and sometimes even discard it in order to work outside of the pre-established structures of knowledge in order to understand history deeper. Although post-structuralist writers do acknowledge the fact that the binary structure exists, they argue that we should challenge it. Yes, there is an arranged hierarchical power present in our world order; such as rationality over emotions, enlightenment over romanticism, the hierarchical dominance of male over female. And even the dominance of a state over another which we can see during Europe’s imperial and colonial conquest of the world, which has created a world image in Western Europe’s image (Bensmaïa, 2005, p. 92-93; Craig, 1998, p. 597). However, that pre-established structure can be changed or be improved due to its construction being based off of the asymmetry of the power divided between the world’s states.

2.1 Hegemonic power What is hegemonic power? One of the first, if not the first, Thucydides, an ancient Athenian historian set forth the idea that international relations create a dynamic that provides differential growth where states grow differently depending on their geographical and physical resources. This in itself creates a pre-existing unequal power for growth, which becomes a driving force for the states which can have resulted in today’s unequal power relations in many parts of the world. The unequal “starting point” can create a tense dynamic that is argued to be identified as hegemonic war; war between states of higher power status versus states of lower power status according to the preexisting factors that these states possess (Gilpin, 1988, p. 592-593). The state with the upperhand becomes the hegemon, while the state at the opposite end is recognised as the subordinate state. One thing that is simple to detect is that the relationship between the hegemon and the subordinate is the inequality of power. Today, we can study the concept

Leïla Inès Soukni of hegemony and the unequal power relations through historical periods, such as imperialism and colonialism that clearly visualise the different positions of power. The power was implemented for the purpose of the hegemon benefiting on the expense of the subordinate state.

For example, several Western European states used their colonies for cheap labour, and to gain the colonies’ natural resources while simultaneously implementing their world image upon the local population (McKay et. al., 2015; Timothy, Stark & Walker, 2019). Within the fields of history and social sciences, hegemonic power came to be described as social, political, cultural, military, geopolitical and even linguistic predominance by one group of people over another within a society or country. Often seen as the predominance of a minority over a majority (Fouskas, 2014, p. 119-120; Laclau & Mouffe, 2001, p. 40-59, p. 125-144).

By having this foundation of knowledge we can use it to understand how core states reached hegemony in their colonies and how that unequal power and dominance has left remains in current day international relations. By going back, studying and understanding the historical events of the past we can find how the events are correlated and how the asymmetry between the colonial hegemon and subordinate can still be seen in contemporary international relations. In the case of France, the dominant state, or the hegemon, during the Second French Colonial Empire, would use their power for economic, military and/or cultural domination and control, differing depending on which colony (Black, 2007, p. 76-77). For example; as Algeria was colonised, France’s imperial policy was to make the territory a part of France, while Tunisia was colonised under France’s policy to gain military and financial control over the resources and strategic locations across Tunisia for regional dominance (Watson, 2003, p. 28; Oliver & Sanderson, 1985).

2.2 Explaining colonialism and imperialism Colonialism and imperialism are policies where a state seeks out foreign territory in order to expand its territory and retain authority and gain financial dominance. In order to achieve this dominance, the colonising state will impose their systems to control the territory, from the judiciary system and the military to the language, cultural practices, religion and economics (McKay et. al., 2015). The foreign state reaches hegemonic power

Leïla Inès Soukni as it implements an unequal power between the colonising state and the colonised state, further creating a difference between the settlers and the local population. The settlers come to act as a bridge between the imperial hegemon, connecting the colonial authorities to the colonised through the ideological, religious, commercial and geographical gaps that could not be filled through macro-level power (Veracini, 2010, p. 5).

While imperialism is often merged with colonialism, as they both are related; there are a few differences. Both colonialism and imperialism describe the domination, influence and superiority of one state over other states. Colonialism can be understood as a colonising state’s development for commercial reasons, which often includes the hegemonic state invading the colonised territory. Compared to imperialism, colonialism often indicates geographical differences, separating the colony from the hegemon’s state. Imperialism is argued to be functioning from the core, as a developed state policy for ideological and economic intentions. Edward Saïd, a philosopher and writer, differentiated colonialism and imperialism as “imperialism involved 'the practice, the theory and the attitudes of a dominating metropolitan center ruling a distant territory', while colonialism refers to the 'implanting of settlements on a distant territory” (Saïd, 1994, p. 9; Gilmartin, 2009, p. 115- 123; Bush, 2014). This colonial and/or imperial expansion by a few Western European states on foreign territory has created a division between nations. It can also be considered as the foundation to the world system that we currently live in as both colonialism and imperialism deeply affected and changed the world balance.

2.3 World system theory World system theory portrays this division in two groups; the developed state, the core state, that is historically the state that colonised other states. And the developing state, the peripheral state, that is the state that was colonised. This geopolitical theory discusses how the consequences of colonialism and imperialism has impacted the way our world functions, and has shaped current day international relations. The core states are states that today have a population that generally have a higher income, the state has higher profit and a more stable economy. Peripheral states, also often referred to as developing states, are on the opposing side of the spectrum with a population that has a generally lower income, have a less diverse economy and low state profit, relatively weak

Leïla Inès Soukni institutions and weak government, and a large portion of the population are living in poverty (Halsall, 1997). Hegemony reached by the core state during colonialism founded an unequal balance between the states (Young, 2015, p. 54). Although there are no longer colonies or empires in the sense of core states controlling and holding physical power over foreign territories, the hegemony that the core states reached during their colonial and imperial rule has created the imbalanced image of power across the world. It is continuing to shape the international relations between states as well as similar patterns of inequality based off the unequal rights implemented by the core states during the colonial and imperial era to differentiate between the local population and the settlers (Gilmartin, 2009, p. 115-123). Understanding the actions of the past we can understand how it could have shaped, and is continuously creating, political tensions that can lead to conflicts, similarly to the bombing of Sakiet Sidi Youssef in 1958 leading to the Bizerte crisis in 1961.

2.4 Neo-gramscianism Neo-gramscianism is an application of critical theory to international relations theory and discusses forms of hegemony. Neo-gramscianism focuses on power on a macro-level. It considers power to be upheld by the collective i.e institutions such as governmental organs or the military (Kreps, 2015). Neo-gramscianism is heavily based on the works of Antoni Gramsci, an Italian philosopher and politician, about cultural hegemony and how class hegemony influences power dynamics and how those of higher class or with a more stable economy establish and implement power through ideology, economic and political coercion and control (Gramsci, 1982). But it has developed since. Later developments adds that the economic aspect of power is very important, as neo-gramscianism argues that it is one of the core motivations for expansion of dominance. It argues that the power is both direct and indirect as the hegemony expressed is used to coerce the colonised or dominated people. The cultural and intellectual persuasion that the hegemon uses to implement their language, societal norms and culture solidifies their power through the absence of direct violence by normalising and standardising it over the local language, culture and societal norms (Jameson & Larsen, 1988). Neo-gramscianism presents hegemony as the idea that the hegemon, or the ruling power, possesses enough power over the subordinate that they can manipulate power to their advantage to an extent where the hegemon’s idea of value and power becomes the world view or system (Martínez-Vela, 2001; Cox, 1983, p. 162-175).

Leïla Inès Soukni

Many of the theoretical concerns that neo-gramscianism approaches have become central to post-structuralist philosophers and can offer space for a range of discussions (Kreps, 2015; Jessop, 2007, p. 34-40).

2.5 Poststructuralism One of the elements of poststructuralism, that can be applied when studying the colonial conditions and relations leading to the Bizerte crisis, can be understood from the French philosopher Michel Foucault about power. Foucault claims that power is located outside of the preexisting structures and is rather situated in the discourse, i.e. in the language. The power is possessed and upheld on a micro-level, meaning it is upheld by the individuals of society which diversifies the expression. Poststructuralism presents power as something that anyone of any class possesses because there will always be unequal power divided between people and groups of people (Delanty & Strydom, 2003, p. 346- 353; Raulet, 1983). Power is not fixed, and it changes over time which results in it always being expressed, one way or another.

A post structuralist approach to power is to surpass the fact that it is only a binary structure, that the hierarchy only has two blocks. The power is not always rooted in the hegemon’s position, it can shift to the subordinate depending on how events occur (Delanty & Strydom, 2003, p. 322-323). The asymmetry of this hierarchical power relationship is then normalised by the individuals who possess and implement their language on others in order to normalise it, similarly to what colonising states implemented in their colonies through the settlers.

2.6 Defining and combining the analytical tools Hegemonic power with neo-gramscianism and post-structuralism indicate an asymmetry of power. This asymmetry between the hegemon and the subordinate state is applied in world system theory as it suggests that that the asymmetry of the colonial relations between state has shaped our current world system . These concepts and theories allows us to understand the central events during the period of France colonising Tunisia. The hegemonic power expressions by France on the French protectorate of Tunisia can be analysed and discussed using the core concepts and ideas presented by neo-gramscianism and post-structuralism. Linking poststructuralism and neo-gramscianism uncovers tools for studying and critically analysing socio-economy and events of the twentieth century.

Leïla Inès Soukni

Although neo-gramscianism and post-structuralism pay attention to power relations on different levels and the understanding of hegemony is approached differently, they can complement each other to formulate discussions. Discussions on how hegemony can be reached by core-states in the peripheral states through institutions and societal classes as well as through individuals in civic society (Kreps, 2015). Although there are arguments by boths sides as to why they are separate, and together create a foundation for understanding how different power is upheld through different actors by applying the foundation one level at a time.

By starting to understand the power of individuals (micro-level), and then develop that understanding to build it up to understanding the power of societies, communities and institutions (macro-level) it is possible to understand how complementary these forms of power are. Power is upheld by different aspects of society and is implemented using the different parts of society. For example in this thesis; I will be studying colonialism in Tunisia and how it lead to the Bizerte crisis of 1961 by analysing the unequal power relations between the two states, to then understand how the Bizerte crisis is the consequence of colonialism. The colonial hegemony that was created is today an international, world system based off of the colonial power expressed by the former colonising state (Kreps, 2015). Combining hegemonic power, neo-gramscianism and world system theory to explain the unequal power relations, which were clearly present leading up to the Bizerte crisis allows for the aim to be understood.

Neo-gramscianism and post-structuralism share the mutual core element that understanding how power is practiced throughout history helps us understand how power is practiced today as history echoes in our “modern” day and age (Kreps, 2015).

These concepts and theories mentioned will allow for this study to be constructed. The terminology that neo-gramscianism, hegemony, poststructuralism and world system theory present will facilitate studying the historical events. Terms such as hegemony, micro- and macro-levels of power, dominance, hegemon state and subordinate state, or core-state and peripheral state will help define the structure of the analytical narrative. The terminology of the theories and concepts will help analyse and discuss the subject. Narrowing down the core terminology to apply them to the analytical discussion will

Leïla Inès Soukni allow for a broad yet precise discussion about how France implemented its colonial power in Tunisia and how it came to sequence in the Bizerte crisis of 1961.

2.7 Methods and material The approach that will be applied in this thesis, is to use hegemonic power, neo- gramscianism and poststructuralism to study the presence of French power present in Tunisia by looking at, and studying the French linguistic, social, legal, cultural and historical impact that can be found in Tunisia today as a consequence of colonialism. By using a qualitative research method to study the historical data and narratives related to the French-Tunisian connections between 1881 and 1961, the colonial and postcolonial events that consequenced in the Bizerte crisis of 1961 can be studied and interpreted to understand the hegemon-subordinate relationship between the states. The historical context will be the descriptive base for the discussion and historical analysis of how France’s colonial implementations of power resulted in the asymmetrical relationship between Tunisia and France that would come to result in an event that would change the power relationship. Eventually causing a shift in the bilateral relations between the two states. The historical analytical discussion will consist of theoretical discussions using a series of concepts; hegemonic power, neo-gramscianism, poststructuralism and world system theory to analyse how France used their power over their colony of Tunisia. Using historical events to present examples to analyse how the implementations of hegemonic power consequences in the Bizerte crisis of 1961.

The majority of the material chosen for the historical context is based off of the research and documentation conducted in France and/or Tunisia, which is understandable considering that the actors involved in Bizerte crisis were France and Tunisia, respectively. When researching the subject, it is important to know that it is not a widely researched subject outside of Tunisia and France. The majority of the sources can only be found in French or in Arabic. The limitations of the information available is limited to the documentation of primary sources as well as the shared colonial history. There is little to no research that discusses the power relationship elaborately using these theories and concepts for the specific time of Tunisia as a French protectorate and the time leading up to the Bizerte crisis in 1961. The presentation of the historical narrative is based off of a selection of secondary sources that document the colonial and postcolonial relationship between France and Tunisia.

Leïla Inès Soukni

Although it is not a new approach to study colonial power relationships, Tunisia’s colonial history often finds itself in the shadows of Algeria’s colonial history. The Bizerte crisis of 1961 is a sequence of both Tunisia and Algeria being colonised by France. The theories and concepts will be used as a toolkit to historically analyse how the implementation of power in a former colony and how it can consequence in a event such as the Bizerte crisis. Furthermore, it will be possible to understand how it shapes the power relationship between the coloniser and the colonised and how it is mirrored as a hegemon-subordinate relationship. History needs no explanation, what has happened has happened. We can study it to understand it with the use of theories (Tosh, 2010). However, theories alone do not provide answers if not combined with another aspect. Social science theories can act as a toolkit to help bring the main questions into focus (Thatchenberg, 2006, p. 33). The combination of theories and historical analytical narrative works to describe what underlies the trajectory of events and how the implementations of power affect the course.

In this thesis, I will present the historical context, in order to discuss and analyse how power has defined France’s colonial hegemonic power in Tunisia through examples of historical events. The theoretical discussion for the historical analysis will incorporate a series of concepts to use as tools in order to understand how colonial implementations of power consequenced in a postcolonial event, i.e the Bizerte crisis of 1961. It will be used to create a narrative which is structured around the concepts of power, hegemonic power, neo-gramscianism, post structuralism and world system theory in order to make it possible to present an understanding of how colonial power relations developed into French hegemonic power, forming a very strong hegemon-subordinate relationship. It will also make it possible to describe, reflect and analyse how the colonial and postcolonial events can cause a shift in such a relation. In order to understand the world system of today it is necessary to to use this kind of historical analytical approach as it presents the trajectory of events that shaped our world system.

Chapter three: A historical-analytical narrative of the process of French colonial dominance over Tunisia and how it consequenced in the Bizerte crisis of 1961 Globally, France has been a dominant state since the 17th century. Compared to France’s other colonies, Tunisia was colonised rather late, in 1881. The trajectory of how power was implemented in colonial Tunisia is similar to that of other colonies, and has been

Leïla Inès Soukni subjected to follow many patterns of traditional dominant power by a colonial state. The dominance of a minority over a majority can be considered a standard aspect of colonialism, however how that dominance is established and implemented does differ between states. Although it is not unique, France’s colonial relation with Tunisia shaped how the two states would come to affect each other once Tunisian independence was gained in 1956, and how it eventually would shift the weight of France’s established hegemonic power.

3.1 Establishing colonial dominance As a rather established global power, France’s invasion of Tunisia was rather quick and faced little direct opposition. The invasion was initiated by France’s Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, Jules Ferry who considered that it was France’s duty to colonise Tunisia. Several colonial powers justified colonising foreign territories by claiming that people of a lighter complexion are superior to those of darker skin (Hobson, 2005, p. 154; Austen, 1969, p. 70-73). This motivation for invading Tunisia was similar to the motivation of the invasion and colonisation of several other African states. The similar patterns of justifying the white race superiority became the general base for establishing dominance in the colonies. Establishing a distinct and visible difference between people of different skin colour, language, culture and social class became what would be the base of how the power were to be divided (Adams & Charrad, 2015). The justification believed by France would result them in invading Tunisia in 1881 through their already established Algerian colony. However, the direct purpose of invading and controlling Tunisia was for the purpose of France’s national interest to not only expand their empire and establish a global dominance (Khlifi, 2001). Colonising Tunisia meant that France would have access to a geographical location, close to Algeria allowing them more power in the region. The point of interest became the naval city of Bizerte, a port that could be used for military strategic interest that would give them the dominant upper hand in the southern Mediterranean.

Dominance can be established in different ways. It can be direct as well as indirect. In the case of Tunisia, France began by making their presence known. Entering cities that were to be important for France’s conquest such as Bardo, in the capital Tunis and its surrounding urban areas, where the Beylical Regent and the Tunisian élite resided and Bizerte which is the most northern point of Africa, geographically situated in the middle

Leïla Inès Soukni of the southern part of the Mediterranean (Khlifi, 2001). The direct measure taken by France to implement physical presence resulted in facilitated measures of control. Although the French colonial troops that were present upon invasion were considerably a smaller number of people compared to the local population, the troops that invaded Bardo and Bizerte were larger in numbers, outnumbering the people in the region giving them an upperhand. The power in numbers would effectively be a tool of bargaining that shifted the power to France’s advantage. France could present their agenda, which they did with the Treaty of Bardo, to claim dominance and rule over Tunisia, securing their dominant role even if faced with opposition. Once present in Bardo the French colonial troops presented the Beylical Regent at the time, Sadok Bey, to sign a treaty that would bind Tunisia to be ruled by France (Khlifi, 2001; Boularès, 2011, p. 490-503). By doing so, France gave the idea that they temporarily shifted over the power to Tunisia that were given the opportunity to the Tunisian head of state to decide the future of the Beylical Regency of Tunisia. However, the power did remain in the possession of France, as they were stronger in numbers with a large military troop that could take direct action and take the power by force if Tunisia opposed France’s treaty. Fearing the fate of France’s other, larger colonies, Sadok Bey signed the Treaty of Bardo on May 12, 1881 and Tunisia was now a French colony.

The representatives from France that were in Tunisia would come to begin implementing their power over Tunisia and the Tunisian people. The first years of France’s socio- military presence in Tunisia came to shape the country quite visibly. French colonial authorities imposed changes to Tunisia that would include a change of system that would mirror the European image and idea of how a country should function (Perkins, 1986; Khlifi, 2001). The relation, and the roles of the hegemon and the subordinate developed quickly and would come to shape France and Tunisia’s position in the world; France would come to grow as a core-state, and Tunisia would develop as a peripheral state. The hierarchical difference placed France at the top and Tunisia at the bottom. As France reached its position as the hegemon early on, the French representatives came to begin with implementing power on a macro-level. The establishment of power began by targeting the institutions in Tunisia. By beginning the implementation of their rule by targeting it at a macro-level allows for the power to be covering the majority of the areas that need to be covered. Institutions which can be governmental organs that implement the judicial system. Taking over the institutions means that the hegemon can impose a

Leïla Inès Soukni system that can give more power to the colonial power and the settlers that are often protected by the judiciary system.

In the case of Tunisia as a colonial protectorate of France, compared to France’s other colonies, had a pre existing governmental institutions and administrations that were imposed during the Beylical Regency of Tunisia. However, Tunisia’s government, institutions and administrations were based on the local culture and Islam, the religion that is practised by the majority of the Tunisian population (Khlifi, 2001; p. 9-13; Boularès, 2011, p. 490-500). As a European state, France would take the pre-existing system and change it to match and mirror the system that is practiced in France. By using a system that already exists, France could facilitate the transition to French rule. France benefited from the already pre-existing system as all they had to do was change the judiciary foundation to fit their agenda.

By controlling the judiciary system, France can implement an agenda of power that benefits them at the expense of the colonised state, Tunisia. Changing and controlling the judiciary system in a colony can cause a shift in power and for the distance between the hegemon and the subordinate people to grow. As there is a preexisting difference or separation between the colonisers and those who are colonised in the sense that the colonising minority were from the beginning considered to be more privileged than the colonised majority. The macro-level control of the institutions by the hegemon only enlarges the distance between them. The class differences that often mirror the hegemon and the subordinate relationship remains a distant one (Cox, 1981; Cox, 1983). The minority élite are often those benefiting of the hegemon’s power while the lower class majority fall on the opposite end and are those that most often are at a disadvantage.

Several colonial states have a similar trajectory of how power is implemented on the colonised people. However, as mentioned, Tunisia already had an established institutional and administrative system and France and its colonial authorities would make use of it. Understanding that they had to change the system in order to minimise the opposition from Tunisia, France created the image that Tunisians still remained in power by appointing the Tunisian élite to work in positions they previously held (Khlifi, 2001; p. 9- 13; Boularès, 2011, p. 490-511). Although appointed as crucial people for the control of the implementation of power, France still controlled them. As much effort that is put in

Leïla Inès Soukni when imposing institutional power on people, it does not always reach the target group(s). By incorporating the Tunisian élite as a way of implementing power on the Tunisian people, the élite can act as a bridge between the colonial authorities and the individual collective that were colonised. The French believed that the Tunisians would be more loyal towards them if they would give the illusion that Tunisia still remained in control of their own territory, and that France were only present in Tunisia to offer protection and assist to the Tunisian administrations. France would continue to carefully maintain the image of Tunisian sovereignty while actually controlling and reforming Tunisia into the “modern and civilised” image of France (Perkins, 1986, p. 86).

Furthermore, after targeting the institutions, France enhanced their military presence around the larger cities and urban areas. The direct physical presence of a dominant institution such as the military gives the hegemon the possibility to act directly if faced with opposition from the subordinate. The French had realised that only implementing a military strategy of systematically killing the people who opposed them, a predominant military dominant system that they had implemented in a few of their other colonies, would only further fuel the resentment towards French colonial rule (Khlifi, 2001). By complementing their predominant military power with other forms of macro-level power implementations makes the control become more central and controlled from the core.

However, although neo-gramscianism suggests that power is implemented on a macro- level, in practice in a colony the implementations of hegemony and power on a macro- level alone, does not reach all parts of society. Even though there is a bridge between the hegemon’s institutional power and the colonised individual collective. But if the macro- level implementations power are complemented with the micro-level implementations of power? Poststructuralism argues that power is upheld by the individuals, on a micro-level and more so, in their discourse (Kreps, 2015). By implementing micro-power as an additional measure can further impose the power between individuals. What is imposed by the French colonial authorities in the institutions are carried out by the European settlers, who benefit from France’s rule, bridging the implementations of control and power on the colonised Tunisians. For example; if the French representatives in power in Tunisia implement a law that states that the Tunisian Arabic language is not to be spoken and the French language is to be used instead, it is the French settlers who help implement

Leïla Inès Soukni that. How? Well they are native French speakers and possess the power of speaking their native language in a foreign territory.

Another factor where control of the language implements unequal power is those who speak it are considered to have an advantage. This micro-level power implementation came via a macro-level power implementation through the judicial and educational institutions. Once the judicial reforms had been implemented, reforms that would impose power on a micro-level through education were implemented. Colonial powers often implement educational systems that will “Europeanise” colonised knowledge. The eurocentrism visibly shaped what the colonised people were to be educated in. The idea that knowledge from one region of the world is considered more advanced plays to the image of superior and inferior, as presented by world system theory (Wallerstein, 2004; Perkins, 1986, p. 88). By making the education system mirror the image of the hegemon state monopolises information and it can further benefit the hegemon’s power. Additionally, by controlling the discourse the hegemon can imply another aspect of power through the settlers living in the colony. Increasing the use of the hegemon’s language and decreasing the usage of the colony’s native language facilitates the colonial hegemon’s accessibility to what is spoken by the people.

For example: France decreased the usage of Tunisian Arabic, as the colonial authorities and the French and European settlers did not understand Tunisian Arabic. France’s representatives in Tunisia believed that the Tunisians could use that fact as a measure to oppose the French. By limiting the use of Tunisian Arabic, the French colonial authorities could control what language was used and limit the possibility of opposition. Furthermore, it was not the only reasons for France to increase the presence of the French language. The colonial authorities introduced the French language to the Tunisian people early on. It was believed by the French representatives that it could help benefit the France. By spreading the French language through the education of the people, they could then recruit the Tunisian students with the highest grades in school to work for the French, or exploit their positions and academic success and recruit them to France (Perkins, 1986, p. 88-89; Aldrich, 1996; Kassab, 2010, p. 335-344). By controlling the language spoken and the education, the power was fully in the possession of the French colonial authorities on a macro- and micro-level.

Leïla Inès Soukni

Once France has established their power in Tunisia, the implementation of power by the French representatives and the colonial authorities present in Tunisia became the normalised.

3.2 Upholding the power France’s predominance in Tunisia became standardised and normalised. The direct and physical military dominance that would impose the French judiciary system imposed would be normalised during the 75 years of French colonialism in Tunisia. The political, cultural, linguistic and social predominance by France was helped by the military predominance. The French colonial military is a governmental institutions that upholds power on a micro-level. But compared to the judiciary system, the military’s dominance can implement direct power. If the judiciary system and laws that have been implemented are disobeyed by those colonised, the military can act directly in response. But power in a colony is not only physical, macro-level dominance upheld by the institutions, or intellectual, micro-level power upheld by the individuals.

As mentioned, European states that colonised other territories often did so to expand their empire and power, and to change or transform those territories into their image. The transformation and development was according to the core-state’s idea of what a modern and civilised state was, which gave the core-state a more powerful and privileged position. Developing the colonised state would only facilitate the colonial hegemon’s exploitation of power. The development of the colony acts as a measure taken by the colonising state in order to uphold their power. France implemented its power through the modernisation and civilisation of Tunisia. One thing to keep in mind is that the idea of how to modernise and civilise Tunisia was to Europeanise it, to make it modern and civil according to western European standards. In order to achieve that, colonial states would develop their colonised states in similar patterns and image as of their state. The development of Tunisia became an aspect of how France would uphold its power. France would develop and improve infrastructure and transportation, the industry, the financial system, and public health, according to their idea of how they were to function (Perkins, 1986, p. 87-88; Cox, 1983; Balch, 1909 p. 539-551; Khémais, 2011, p. 20-21; Wallerstein, 2004; Martínez- Vela, 2001). By developing a colony it allows for the job market to grow. However, as much as it improves the job market, the local population that consist of the majority of the people working are exploited. At the end of the day, development carried out through

Leïla Inès Soukni

French businesses that were working together with the colonial authorities were those who benefit from the development. The colonised people were not favoured, which ties back to the implementations of power.

The distance between the hegemon and the subordinate are visible in every form of power, whether it is on a macro-level or micro-level, direct or indirect, equal or unequal. How the core-state establishes its power in its colony is what shapes how their power will be upheld. Picture it this way: relations between two states work by giving and taking. But there is one that will take more at the expense of the other having to give more. Both might benefit from the relationship, but put into context one will benefit more and for a longer time, while the other will only temporarily benefit from the relationship. This is a simplified way of explaining how the colonial relationship between France and Tunisia was upheld through unequal power.

Most often, colonising states would practice eliminating those who oppose them. It could be through direct or indirect power. As much power that is implemented on the macro- and micro-level, there will be opposition. It may not be direct and visible, however it grows through groups of people who will work together for a common goal, no matter how big or small that goal is. Colonial core-states would eliminate the opposition through the same way they would implement their power. Through macro-level changes that would prohibit activity by the subordinate that would oppose the hegemon’s power. Implementing laws that would require legal action against opposition. The action could be indirect and non-confrontational forms of power such as prohibiting free-speech through introducing censorship, by removing the subordinate’s right to oppose the hegemon through using different forms of discourse. Action can also be direct forms of power such as physically removing the subordinate from the little freedom they had by imprisoning those who oppose the hegemon (Fred, 1968, p. 279-298). In some cases, colonial authorities have also imposed their power through torturing and sometimes even killing the colonised people who oppose them as a way of removing the threat. Sometimes to spread fear the colonial core-state would use the removal of the subordinate opposition as a measure to present their power (Grandmaison, 2001; Gallimard, 1991, p. 704-705). This became the often silent, yet primary measure of implementation of power in western Europe’s colonies across the continents.

Leïla Inès Soukni

France’s representatives and colonial authorities would implement this form of power as a way to distance the hegemon from the subordinate in order to avoid the power to shift over to the colonised Tunisians. When nationalist movements fighting for independence from France began to grow in Tunisia, many of the members were jailed. Some of the members that were considered to be a bigger threat to France’s power were sent to be imprisoned in France métropolitane (mainland France) or on French islands in the Mediterranean. Some were forced into internment camps, especially during World War II (1939-1945) when the Vichy Regime were in temporary control of the French North African colonies, the direct elimination of nationalist movements became the primary target for upholding their power (Boularès, 2011, p. 570-597).

The political climate in France during the Second World War would come to affect Tunisia as well. As the Free French Forces fought for freedom from the Vichy Regime and the occupation of Nazi Germany, Tunisia faced the same fight. The direct elimination of those opposing France’s colonial rule increased with the presence of the Axis Powers in Tunisia. The distance separating the hegemon from the subordinante was greater than it was before the Vichy Regime became present in Tunisia (Boularès, 2011, p. 584-597). The macro-level power upheld by the institutions increased, while the micro-level power upheld by the individuals decreased. The military dominance during the Second World War grew into becoming the primary form of power implemented in Tunisia.

The use of the military to establish and enforce control is often practiced by colonial authorities as a measure to stay in power over their subordinate. The emphasis on violence towards the subordinate was a way for the hegemon to imply that any disobedience of their implemented power or opposition to their power would be handled with violence (Dupuy, 1990, p. 67).

As the territory that the core-state has colonised is a part of their empire, the development and modernisation is beneficial to them more than it is to those who are colonised. As much as France did work closely with the Tunisian élite to uphold their position as those in power, at the end of the day, the colonies and the people in the colonies just did not benefit from the territory being colonised and will oppose the colonial power. Building upon the discontent of the subordinate will often result in the hegemon beginning to lose

Leïla Inès Soukni its influence and power over the subordinate and the distance between the hegemon and the subordinate begins to decrease.

3.3 National liberation in the presence of a fading hegemonic power Those in power will often face opposition from those who do not agree. Colonised states are no different. Autonomy, sovereignty and independence are often considered important to colonised states. The concept of a core-state controlling a territory foreign to their own will eventually face opposition. Nationalist movement for independence from the colonial hegemony often exist parallel to the colonial rule. Put into a colonial context, the subordinate that fought in resistance movements against the hegemon would adapt the hegemon’s power implementation against those in power. Power is often upheld through the hegemon’s intentional implementations and usually faces little direct opposition (Boularés, 2011, p. 546-551). However, times do change and develop. Much of it can come through the hegemon’s reforms and structural dominance over the subordinate. The judicial and educational reforms often shape system and the knowledge of the colonised people into the colonial hegemon’s idea of what the institutions should be shaped like. The knowledge that is taught in the schools is often similar to the knowledge in the hegemon’s state. The access that the subordinate gets through the hegemon’s power, can offer room for the subordinate to use it against the foreign state that controls them. Similar can be applied to the direct action taken by nationalist and resistance movements. The colonial hegemony can imply violence as a measure of power through their military predominance. The subordinate often uses that measure to commit direct actions toward the dominance of the hegemon through protests and/or attacks (Cordova, 2019). Many of those resisted had been jailed throughout the years in colonial Tunisia. But the climate shifted after the Second World War and the defeat of the Vichy Regime that had taken over for a few years.

From 1945 a few of the Tunisian opposition leaders were freed from imprisonment and the internment camps, some were however sent into exile. This was orchestrated by the French representatives and colonial authorities in attempt to eliminate any possible threat but simultaneously to eliminate fueling more opposition from the Tunisian resistance movements. However, many of those who were freed would be imprisoned again by France and the majority were sent to be imprisoned in France métropolitane in order to physically distance them from the Tunisian population (Khlifi, 2001; Boularès, 2011, p.

Leïla Inès Soukni

564-583; 614-625). Trying to physically divide the resistance movements, became a tactic France would use in order to hold on to the power they had in a time where their hegemonic power had begun fading.

The power relationship between France and Tunisia had been unequal from the beginning of the colonisation of Tunisia. But through the different events, the distance between the colonial hegemony and the subordinate’s power changed back and forth. Sometimes the distance grew larger and France and its settlers benefited more from aspects such as the job market’s improvement and the exploitation of Tunisia’s resources leading to a growing economy for France. Other times the distance between the subordinate and the hegemon grew smaller, benefiting the subordinate such as during the post Second World War period when nationalist resistance movements grew in Tunisia as several colonies were being colonised across the continents causing many core-states hegemonic power to fade in the colonies.

Colonialism leads to the idea that the subordinate is dependent on the hegemon since the core state, is in the position of power and is more developed. However. the case of France exploiting its relation with Tunisia in order to keep the hold on Bizerte shows that the hegemon can also depend on the subordinate that has the resources that the core state does not possess. The colonial relationship becomes a codependency. But, the codependency of the states can still be unequal with the hegemon gaining more off of the codependent relationship than the subordinate (Khlifi, 2001; Boularès, 2011, p. 650-663; Chadli, 2018, p. 45-82; James, 1997, p. 205-226; So, 1990).

Tensions between Tunisia and France would continuously grow. As many Western European states began decolonising their colonies following the end of the Second World War, France would follow suit in their colonies. The power that France had implemented faced great opposition and it was fading fast, similar to its other colonies. The decolonisation process of Tunisia would be initiated in 1951. Negotiations between France and Tunisian resistance leaders from the nationalist movement party, Neo-Destour would be held on several occasions (Boularès, 2011, p. 636-641). The majority of the negotiations failed due to disagreement on the future of Bizerte in northern Tunisia. Complete Tunisian independence would lead to the loss of the strategic location that had been beneficial to France’s implementation of power in its North African colonies,

Leïla Inès Soukni strategically located in the middle of the Mediterranean sea. France had installed a military base in Bizerte, occupying the north western region, which had been crucial to France’s colonial military dominance in their Algerian colony and feared that the loss of access to the region of Bizerte and the military base would affect their military control (El Machat, 2000, p. 299-326; Rivlin, 1952, p. 177). After several failed attempts, Tunisia opted for gradual independence which France would come to agree on. Tunisia was granted full autonomy from its colonisers in 1954 with the exception Bizerte that would remain a territory of France.

Bizerte was important to both France and Tunisia. But as France had been the colonising state, they had the majority of the hegemonic power and controlled the future of Tunisian independence. As much as the negotiations benefited Tunisia, the benefited France more as they remained in control of the territory that was initially the reason for France’s invasion and colonisation of Tunisia (Decock, 2001). In the end, Tunisia was granted complete independence in 1955, which went into effect on March 20, 1956 and Bizerte remained a French territory (Boularès, 2011, p. 674-679). But even if the days of France’s dominant, hegemonic rule were over, France still held some power over its now former colony. Their influence would remain and affect Tunisian national and postcolonial politics.

3.4 Upholding forms of dominance in a post-colonial era After independence, there was still a presence of the French military in Tunisia. Although smaller than what it was during the years of being a French protectorate, the French army was quite present in some regions. Their presence in Tunisia was now not for the purpose of ruling over it, it was rather for the purpose of remaining in control over their territory in Algeria (Boularès, 2011, p. 689). France would continuously exploit their relation to Tunisia. The exploitation was a strategy by the colonial hegemony in order to still use and benefit from the resources that the subordinate possesses. The basis for the exploitation of the subordinate comes through exploiting factors that the subordinate state still depends on the core state. For example; France exploited the Tunisian fight for independence in order to remain in power of Bizerte.

Leïla Inès Soukni

The consequence of colonial forms of power in a postcolonial era can result in events where the hegemonic power is challenged and can lead to violence between the hegemon and the subordinate. An example is the Bizerte crisis of 1961.

The struggle for France to hold on to its hegemonic power over Tunisia came from Algeria’s importance to France. The situation in Algeria would come to affect Tunisia. The events of the Algerian war of independence (1954-1962) would shape the diplomatic relations between France and Tunisia, as France’s strategy to control Algeria through complete and absolute military dominance would trigger movement over the border between Tunisia and Algeria. Fearing that Algerians had fled to Tunisia seeking refuge, France would come to attack its former colony in an attempt to remain in power in Algeria. But by doing so it would harm France’s hegemony in Tunisia.

On February 8, 1958 the French Air Force bombed the village of Sakiet Sidi Youssef in Tunisia in order to persecute the Algerians that had sought refuge in Tunisia. Over 70 civilians, including a class of Tunisian primary school students and Algerian refugees were killed, and ca 150 people were injured (Baccouche, 2008; Boularès, 2011, p. 689). An act of violence after France and Tunisia had peacefully negotiated Tunisian independence was considered to be an act of disrespect according to Tunisia. This was one of two large postcolonial events that would come to shape the relations between Tunisia and France. The diplomatic relations were halted as a consequence of the bombing. Tunisia ordered French consuls around Tunisia to leave the country, and demanded a direct removal of the French military that is present in Tunisia. France followed the orders, understanding the severity of the attack and how it decreased France’s power over Tunisia. (Wall, 2001; Khlifi, 2001; Adams & Charrad, 2015; Essebsi, 2017, p. 83-88). But France still did not let go of Bizerte.

The distance in power between Tunisia and France decreased, and France had less and less direct power and influence on its former colony. The political climate between the states immediately changed. What was the reason for the failed colonial negotiations became the only postcolonial negotiations. The future of Bizerte and if it would be returned to become a part of Tunisia again was the only physical link between Tunisia and its colonial ruler. After the bombing Tunisia had gained leverage in the negotiations to reclaim Bizerte as a Tunisian territory. However, France would still remain in the

Leïla Inès Soukni position of the hegemon in the relationship between the two states. But France would hold presidential elections that same year that would come to change the French government's policy towards its colonies and former colonies (Ikeda, 2006, p. 239).

Charles de Gaulle was elected and France implemented policies that were adamant on changing the relations with their colonies and former colonies. But the situation with Tunisia would be difficult considering what the bombing of Sakiet Sidi Youssef had done to the relations. The French military and many French settlers were still present in the Bizerte region and the military base that had been established when Tunisia was colonised was still in full use (Khlifi, 2001). The military base was considerably smaller, but the France did not follow the demands made by Tunisia. The power that Tunisia had gained from gaining its independence was still not matched to France’s. The power relationship still echoed from the remains of the colonial relations and Tunisia would remain as the subordinate in the relationship with France. The colonial power that had been implemented when France ruled over Tunisia, shaped the global distribution of power between the core-state, France, and the peripheral state, Tunisia. And it would come to lead up to the Bizerte crisis of 1961 that would be the biggest Franco-Tunisian tragedy recorded to date (Boularès, 2011, p. 690; Essebsi, 2017, p. 95-100). There would be attempts to reconcile and improve the diplomatic damage that was caused by the bombing of Sakiet Sidi Youssef, but it would not change the power dynamic between the states.

After decolonisation, core states would still have power over their former colonies. The exploitation of the colonies, the macro- and micro-level power implemented shaped the colonies’ postcolonial politics and development (Wallerstein, 1992, p. 561-619). France’s power was present in Tunisia through the continuous use of the military base in Bizerte. Parallel to the postcolonial negotiations on the future of Bizerte and France’s governmental change on foreign policies towards their colonies and former colonies, France planned an enlargement of the military base in Bizerte (Abis, 2004; Essebsi, 2017, p. 100-111; Chadli, 2018, p. 124-125). Once the news reached Tunisia, the Tunisian government took direct action against its former ruler.

The French government, under president de Gaulle used Tunisia’s fight to regain its territories that were still occupied by the French military in order to provoke a response. The tactic was to provoke and indirectly influence the subordinate to potentially attack

Leïla Inès Soukni the military base and use the attack to justify the expansion of the military base in Bizerte (Abis, 2004; Essebsi, 2017, p. 100-111; Chadli, 2018, p. 103-109). France’s activity in the region expanded onto Tunisian territory and on July 19, 1961 Tunisia responded to France’s provocation. Military action was taken and the Tunisian government organised a military blockade near the border to the occupied region of Bizerte. The Tunisian blockade lead to a response by president de Gaulle who ordered the French military in the region to take back the naval port, and by force if needed (Abis, 2004). The situation escalated and turned into a four day long battle ending on July, 23 after Tunisia suggested a ceasefire and Tunisia asked for help from the United Nations (UN) who, implemented considerably weak efforts to put international pressure on France, lead to Tunisian outrage (Thomas, 1961). France responded by sending 800 paratroopers and howitzers attacking the Tunisian roadblocks, destroying them completely to then advance into Tunisian territory. The French military declared fire on the city of Menzel-Bourguiba, situated on the south western part of the Lake of Bizerte, killing Tunisian soldiers and civilians. As the ceasefire was declared and the battle ended, 24 French soldiers, and over 1000 Tunisian soldiers and civilians had lost their lives (Khlifi, 2001, p. 163-165; Abis, 2004; Baccouche, 2008; Chadli, 2018, p. 125-130; Essebsi, 2017, p. 112-119). The battle affected France’s economy as well as changed the course of the Algerian war of independence. France were forced to abandon the military base in Bizerte, but it would remain under French rule until 1963. Only then would the Bizerte region legally return as a part of the Tunisian territory (Abis, 2004; Khlifi, 2001; Baccouche, 2008). The battle of Bizerte has symbolically been seen as the consequence of French colonialism. The aftermath of how the Franco-Tunisian relations would pursue became heavily influenced by the hegemon-subordinate relationship and the challenge between them for power.

Although the French policy towards its former colonies had changed, the French president was adamant on not damaging France’s image as a global hegemon more by not responding to Tunisia. France could regain its position as the hegemon over Tunisia by holding onto the Bizerte region as a tool for bargaining. Colonial powers often still have an upperhand once its former colony is granted independence (McKay et. al., 2015; Oliver & Sanderson, 1985). For France, by losing Bizerte, for any reason, could result in France losing its strongest possession that allows for France to remain in power in the bilateral relationship. After Tunisia’s independence, Bizerte became a bargaining chip for France to push for their agenda and still hold some power over Tunisia. And eventually lead to

Leïla Inès Soukni the Bizerte crisis in 1961. To remain in the position of the hegemon became crucial to France, any means necessary to hold on to that power, and to keep the distance between their power at large from the subordinate to secure their power. However, how the power over its subordinate would be shifted from direct military dominance after Tunisian independence, but during the Battle of Bizerte the military dominance would be implemented by France. As a core state, France had a more strong and stable military than that of Tunisia’s which is a consequence of colonialism (Timothy, Stark & Walker, 2019). The characteristics of world system theory can often be visualised through postcolonial relations between the core state that colonised the peripheral state.

The hegemonic relationship between Tunisia and France during the Bizerte crisis of 1961 followed the trajectory of the dominant core state exploiting the peripheral state, even after decolonisation. Although several colonies have gained their independence, their postcolonial relation with the core state that colonised them often mirrors the colonial relations of hegemon and subordinate imposed during colonialism. The asymmetry in power shaped the global, capitalist system of today (Martínez-Vela, 2001; Cox, 1983, p. 162-175; Bush, 2004). The cultural, social, linguistic and political systems implemented during colonialism can still be seen in Tunisia today, showing how deep rooted colonial hegemonic power implemented by the core state affected the colonised subordinate state, and how it still affects the peripheral state.

Chapter five: The remnants of France’s colonial hegemonic power & influence in postcolonial Tunisia The Bizerte crisis was an indirect consequence of the hegemonic power that France had implemented during its colonisation of France. It is regarded as one of the biggest tragedies in modern Tunisian history and is annually commemorated during the day of the martyrs in Tunisia.

Following the trajectory of how France imposed its power in Tunisia, we can understand that the transition changed the power dynamic between the states. The direct consequence would lead to the hegemonic power relation between France and Tunisia to become more balanced and would eventually be regarded as a turning point for the states. The relations improved after the event and the hegemonic power relationship was balanced out. The distance between the hegemon and the subordinate’s power decreased.

Leïla Inès Soukni

However, the colonial power would still result in France being the hegemon over Tunisia even in the postcolonial relationships established.

The postcolonial relations between France and its former colonies are heavily based on the colonial relations, Tunisia nonetheless. Many of the bilateral agreements that exist today can be traced back to the colonial relations that were formed when Tunisia was a French protectorate. Import and export trade agreements were established and would eventually benefit both states.

Similarly, the social and cultural life in Tunisia is today very influenced by France and French media. As well as the fact that French is the official second language in Tunisia, and has been since independence in 1956 (Boularès, 2011; Essebsi, 2017). The education in Tunisia includes a curriculum that is inspired by that of France, and mirrors the grading system and how the semesters and trimesters are divided. The French influence is so present in Tunisia today that the majority of the higher education is offered in French more than it is in Arabic. The French language is so prominent in Tunisia that the more advanced you are in your French studies, the higher your chances are to be offered the possibility to get a higher education in France (Deckock, 2001; Essebsi, 2017; Ikeda, 2006) . However, the influence and power of France is not only limited to the language and the social life.

Many Tunisians who have finished their studies in Tunisia are often recruited to work in France. Recruiting workforce from its former colonies allows for what is often regarded as cheap labour (Boularès, 2011; Kassab, 2010). Once again, the relationship established during the colonial era of the core-state and the peripheral state is present. In a postcolonial era, Tunisia and France are technically not depending on each other in the same context as during colonialism. However, France is still benefiting from being a core state, with a stronger government and a more stable economy which often attracts people to move to the core state that remain in the peripheral state that is still developing. France offers an aspect of life that can not be offered by Tunisia as the peripheral state, similar to several other former colonies, is in a position that was established when it was colonised. Therefore benefiting from something like cheap labour, however not in the same sense of what cheap labour meant during colonialism and imperialism. France benefits in a way

Leïla Inès Soukni that the French state does not pay any expenses to educate the people they are recruiting. Once Tunisian students, in most educational fields have graduated and ready to enter the job market, a quota of graduates are recruited to work in and for France which helps to cover the job market and eventually help develop and improve the country’s economy. Furthermore, Tunisia does not have the same benefit (Baccouche, 2008; Perkins, 2004). The unequal division of exchange in import and export that is visible today, mirrors the equivalent division that was established during the days of the protectorate. Tunisia does benefit from its postcolonial relations to France, but in a different manner; Tunisia and France have a free trade agreement which has helped flourish Tunisia’s export its resources to Europe. Tunisia also benefits financially as it is a francophone country and has a rich history from even before it was a French protectorate, which attracts tourism, which in itself strengthens the economy. And although Tunisia is developing and emerging from being a former dictatorship, the factors of what Tunisia may gain from its relations with France in the future remain unclear. The benefits can change or they can improve. But as suggested by world system theory; the current day international relations between states function can be traced back to colonialism and the regulations, laws, and rules that were implemented by the hegemon over the subordinate state.

Conclusion In conclusion, by following the trajectory of France’s colonial history in Tunisia, from when it began to when it ended, it is possible understand how it would affect the postcolonial relations. The coloniser, often a core-state, becomes the hegemon and the state that holds the power over the colonised state, the peripheral state, which becomes the subordinate state to the one in power. The colonial relations that established the roles of the hegemon and the subordinate can still be seen today. The states that had colonies were often European states that today are considered core states; more developed, more stable, more modernised. Compared to the states that were colonised, who remain in the role of the subordinate even after independence and are considered peripheral states with less development, less stable and less modernised according to the European standard. In other words, according to the world image of the core states. Europe’s dominant role through history has shaped its current role as a leading force within international relations. The majority of European states that had former colonies gained the role of the hegemon through that, and has resulted in the European continent to gain that role after the decolonisation process.

Leïla Inès Soukni

It is important to understand that the history of Europe’s power has shaped how power is defined in our world system. It presents why the majority of the European states are today in a position of power, and more developed than the states that were formerly colonised. The initial European ideology of being superior to other states during colonialism has indirectly resulted in the core states of Europe to remain in the position of the hegemon and the former colonised states to remain as subordinate. It is important to study that the position of Europe and the development of the European Union today is built upon the colonial and imperial past of Europe. The micro-level and macro-level implementation of power that European colonising states imposed on its colonies is visibly the base of how the asymmetry in power between the hegemon and the subordinate shaped the current world system. The division of unequal power that was implemented during colonialism and imperialism can today be seen in bilateral and multilateral international relations. By having studied the history of Europe’s power, using the concepts of hegemonic power, neo-gramscianism, and post structuralism we can understand the present world system division of power between states and how it has affected the world to develop and modernise in the image of the hegemon; Europe.

The macro-level and micro-level power that is upheld by the institutions, different parts of society and individuals shaped the political climate. Hegemonic power influences and rules over those who are colonised, and can be through direct and indirect action, or both through macro-level and micro-level implementations of power. Once the direct hegemonic power was removed, such as during the process of the decolonisation of Tunisia, how that hegemonic power influences the subordinate changes. And the distance of power between the hegemon and the subordinate decreases. The subordinate gains power through independence, but the colonial hegemon will still have more power over the subordinate. The asymmetrical and unequal power remains a part of the relationship, but the degree to that the asymmetry of power is, changes and shifts as the relations develop. The colonial relations deeply shaped the subordinate on a macro- and micro- level and deeply affects to what degree the power will be divided by the states. The source of the hegemon’s power comes from the colonial and imperial ideology of that those states who possess the hegemonic power are entitled to it because they are simply superior to those they colonised. The deep rooted hegemonic power that is present in current day

Leïla Inès Soukni bilateral and multilateral relations comes from the implementation of macro-level and micro-level dominance.

Furthermore, the hegemonic power possessed, and expressed by the colonising state shaped an asymmetrical relationship with the subordinate, or the colonised state, is at a disadvantage compared to the colonial hegemon that is at an advantage. The unequal power and codependency that was heavily shaping the world during the colonial and imperial era, helped shaped our current global system. Many of the international relations trade agreements between states can be tied back to the colonial and imperial relations and the unequal power is visualised by the development and financial growth in the core state through its historical and current relations with the peripheral state.

With the concept of hegemony together with international relations, neo-gramscianism and world system theory we can frame the historical context of the events to study the question of how the power relations was introduced, implemented and how it has shaped the world system of our time. In a similar pattern, by having traced back the history of France’s rule in Tunisia, we can understand how the Bizerte crisis in 1961 is a sequence and consequence of how France ruled in Tunisia. We can observe France’s position as the hegemon, even after Tunisian independence, to be a result of France being in the position of the hegemon when Tunisia was under its colonial rule. France’s colonial physical dominance in Tunisia may have ended once Tunisia gained its independence. But the continued attempt by France to benefit from and exploit Tunisia as if it were still a French protectorate came to create a confrontation where the subordinate challenged the hegemon.

When the colonial hegemonic power is transitioned to postcolonial hegemonic power, the decrease in distance between the hegemon and subordinate’s power will affect their relationship. Eventually it can either create positive or negative relations depending on how the colonial hegemonic power affected the subordinate. The hegemonic power that France implemented in Tunisia as well as the military, political, social, cultural and linguistic dominance that France had in Tunisia when it was a French protectorate had heavily affected the relations and how the power is divided between the states. The world system, a consequence of the unequal power dynamics present during colonialism, is shaped from the asymmetry of power implemented when many western European states

Leïla Inès Soukni expanded their power and empires. The motivation and causes for colonising different countries may have been different from state to state, but the consequence of colonial rule is more or less the same; the unequal power between the hegemon and the subordinate remained after decolonisation and shaped the global world system. The subordinate has gained more power after decolonisation, but is still a subordinate to its former colonial hegemon. The colonial hegemon has the power to grant the colonised state its independence and had the power to make it benefit the core state in the process.

One can argue that if the colonial hegemonic power implementations did not occur, the trajectory might not have lead to the postcolonial world system of today. And the Bizerte crisis may not have taken place. Power, whether it is colonial or postcolonial, hegemony can cause political, military, social, cultural and linguistic change. But to disregard the history behind events creates a lack of understanding. History is linear and consequences of events follow. It shaped the world system, and our marco-level and micro-level power continues to affect the world system.

Bibliography Abis, Sébastien. (2004) “L'Affaire de Bizerte : (1956-1963)”. Sud Éditions. Tunis.

Leïla Inès Soukni

Abis, S. & Cordier-Féron, D. (2011). Bizerte, otage de l'histoire : de la Seconde Guerre mondiale aux indépendances du Maghreb. L'Harmattan. Paris.

Adams, J., & Charrad, M. (2015). Patrimonial Capitalism and Empire: Vol. First edition. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Aldrich, R. (1996). Greater France: A History of French Overseas Expansion. Palgrave Macmillan.

Augeron, M. & DuPlessis, R. (2010) Fleuves, rivières et colonies. La France et ses empires, XVIIe-XXe siècle. Les Indes savantes. Paris.

Austen, R. (1969). Modern Imperialism ed. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath.

Baccouche, Hédi. (2008). “L'agression française contre Sakiet Sidi-Youssef : les faits et les suites”. éd. Université de la Manouba. Manouba.

Balch, T. (1909). French Colonization in North Africa. The American Political Science Review, 3(4).

Bensmaïa, R. (2005). Poststructuralism, article published in Kritzman, Lawrence (ed.). The Columbia History of Twentieth-Century French Thought, Columbia University Press.

Black, J., (2007). Great Powers and the Quest for Hegemony: The World Order Since 1500. Routledge.

Boularès, Habib. (2011). “Histoire de la Tunisie : Les grandes dates ; de la préhistoire à la révolution”. Sud Éditions. Tunis.

Bush, B. (2014). Imperialism and Postcolonialism. Routledge. New York.

Chadli, A. (2018). “Bourguiba, tel que je l’ai connu : La transition Bourguiba - Ben Ali”, Troiséme Édition, Simpact. Tunis.

Leïla Inès Soukni

Convention of La Marsa, 1883.

Cordova, G. (2019). Challenging hegemony, imaging alternatives. Everyday youth discourses and practices of resistance in contemporary Tunisia. The Journal of North African Studies.

Cox, R. (1981). Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Cox Millennium – Journal of International Studies.1981; 10.

Cox, R. (1983). Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method. Millennium 12 No. 2.

Craig, E. (1998). Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Vol. 7 (Nihilism to Quantum mechanics). Routledge. London and New York.

Decock, L. (2001) “Histoire et mémoire de la décolonisation tunisienne”. Histoire en réseau des Méditerranées, éd. Université de Paris VII. Paris.

Dupuy, T.N. (1990) Understanding war: History and Theory of combat. Leo Cooper, London.

El Machat, S. (2000). La crise de Bizerte 1960-1962. Revue française d’histoire d’outre mer.

El Mechat, S. (2005). Les relations franco-tunisiennes : histoire d'une souveraineté arrachée, 1955-1964. L'Harmattan. Paris.

Delanty, G. & Strydom, P. (2003). Philosophies of Social Science: The Classic and Contemporary Readings. Maidenhead, UK & Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Essebsi, B. C. (2017). “Bourguiba : le bon grain et l'ivraie, éd (7ème édition de 2017)”. Sud Éditions, Tunis.

Leïla Inès Soukni

Fouskas, VK. (2014). The Politics of International Political Economy. Taylor and Francis. Routledge.

Fred I. A. Omu. (1968). The Dilemma of Press Freedom in Colonial Africa: The West African Example. The Journal of African History, 9(2). Retrieved May 11, 2020.

Gallimard. (1991). Extract of Travail sur l'Algérie, in Œuvres complètes by Alexis de Tocqueville, 1841. Pléïade.

Gilpin, R. (1988). The Theory of Hegemonic War. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18(4).

Gramsci, A. (1982). Selections from the Prison Books. Lawrence and Wishart.

Grandmaison, O. L. C. (2001). ”Liberty, equality and colony”. Le Monde Diplomatique

Halsall, P. (1997). Modern History Sourcebook: Summary of Wallerstein on World System Theory.

Hobson, J.A. (2005) "Imperialism: a study". Cosimo, Inc. 2005.

Ikeda, R. (2006). French policy towards Tunisia and Morocco: The international dimensions of decolonisation 1950-1956. University of London. United Kingdom.

James, P. (1997). "Postdependency? The Third World in an Era of Globalism and Late- Capitalism". Alternatives: Global, Local, Political. 22 (2).

Jameson, F. & Larsen, N. (1988). The Ideologies of Theory: Essays 1971-1986. Routledge.

Jessop, B. (2007). From micro-powers to governmentality: Foucault’s work on statehood, state formation, statecraft and state power. Political Geography (26)1.

Kassab, A. (2010). Histoire générale de la Tunisie, vol. IV. éd. Sud Éditions. Tunis.

Leïla Inès Soukni

Khémais, A. (2011). Les élections politiques en Tunisie de 1881 à 1956, éd. L’Harmattan. Paris.

Khlifi, O. (2001). Bizerte : La Guerre de Bourguiba. éd. MC-Editions, Carthage.

Kreps, D. (2015). Gramsci and Foucault: A Reassessment. Ashgate Publishing.

Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C. (2001). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy (Second ed.). London: Verso.

Martinez-Vela, C. A. (2001). World Systems Theory.

McKay, et al. (2015). “A History of World Societies: Tenth Edition”. Bedford/ St. Martin’s.

Oliver, R. & Sanderson, G.N. (1985). The Cambridge History of Africa, vol. 6. Cambridge University Press. United Kingdom.

Perkins, K. J. (2004). A History of Modern Tunisia. Cambridge University Press. United Kingdom.

Perkins, K. J. (1986). Tunisia. Crossroads of the Islamic and European World. Westview Press. US.

Raulet, G. (1983). "Structuralism and Post-Structuralism: An Interview with Michel Foucault". Telos. 1983, (55).

Rivlin, B. (1952). "The Tunisian Nationalist Movement: Four Decades of Evolution". Middle East Journal. 6.

Saïd, E. W. (1994). Culture and Imperialism. Vintage Publishers.

Leïla Inès Soukni

So, A. Y. (1990). Social Change and Development: Modernization, Dependency, and World-Systems Theory. Newbury Park, London and New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Trachtenberg, M. (2006). The Craft of International History : A Guide to Method. Princeton University Press.

Thomas, F. Brady. (July 31, 1961). “TUNISIANS BITTER OVER U.N. FAILURE ON BIZERTE CRISIS; Say Council Is 'Incapable' of Concrete Decisions – Assembly Call Expected”. Thomas F. Brady’s Special to New York. New York Times. Retrieved February 18, 2020 from https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1961/07/31/97683403.html

Timothy, Laurie N., Stark, Hannah., Walker, Briohny. (2019). On the power dynamics between Western cultural knowledge production and Indigenous knowledge systems. "Critical Approaches to Continental Philosophy: Intellectual Community, Disciplinary Identity, and the Politics of Inclusion". Parrhesia: A Journal of Critical Philosophy. Web. 20 March. 2020.

Tosh, J. (2010). The pursuit of history: aims, methods and new directions in the study of modern history (5th ed.). Longman.

Treaty of Bardo, 1881.

Veracini, L. (2010). Settler Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wall, Irwin M., (2001). France, the United States, and the Algerian War. Berkeley, University of California Press. US.

Wallerstein, I. (2004). "World-systems Analysis" In World System History, ed. George Modelski, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Leïla Inès Soukni

Wallerstein, I. (1992). "The West, Capitalism, and the Modern World-System", Review 15 (4).

Watson, W. E. (2003). Tricolor and Crescent: France and the Islamic World. Praeger Publishers Inc.

Young, R. (2015). Empire, colony, postcolony. Wiley-Blackwell.