This paper examines Tunisia’s decentralization process following the 2011 revolution, focusing on the overlooked political dynamics that shaped its trajectory. While decentralization was intended to foster democracy and empower local governance to offset years of uneven development in the country, competing political agendas and the intervention of external actors led to competing agendas and a deflection of the key political dynamics at play. Different national actors, especially political parties created significant obstacles by focusing on controlling Parliament and the political transition in Tunisia from the top-down. This top-heavy approach neglected local reforms and the intricate negotiations needed to transform the process of delivering local goods and services, leading to political clientelism and public disenchantment.

When political gridlock grew untenable, citizens elected a “law and order” president, Kais Saied, who promised stability and sidelined decentralization. Saied framed decentralization as a foreign agenda threatening national unity, leveraged international donors to align with his priorities, using the illegal immigration agenda to sway their interests, and gradually recentralized power. His administration’s actions reversed decentralization efforts, replacing municipal councils with centrally appointed delegations, and promoting a centralized governance model, while appeasing local elites by calling for a second chamber in Parliament.

The study argues that the dominant focus on normative, legal frameworks by donors and civil society missed the broader reality: decentralization is deeply political, requiring local political legitimacy and institutional commitment beyond legal reforms. Without addressing entrenched political interests, many of the bureaucratic hurdles facing decentralization were left unaddressed undermining the legitimacy of the process and paving the way for the return of a highly centralized order of governance. This research offers a historical-political analysis to highlight how internal political rivalries and uncoordinated external support limited the decentralization process. It calls for a rethinking of democratization efforts, emphasizing grassroots political support, tangible local service improvements, fiscal decentralization and institutional independence to ensure decentralization can genuinely empower local governance.