Four years back, it would probably have been difficult for Tunisians to imagine that a coalition of the country's civil rights groups would be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in the near future. Tunisia, ruled by autocratic leaders like Habib Bourguiba and later Ben Ali for a good 54 years after its independence from French colonialists, was besieged by rampant corruption, lack of economic opportunities and police violence. 

When the country was at the brink of a civil war in 2013, following Ben Ali's ouster after the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia that resulted in the Arab Spring, the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet, comprising a coalition of four major civil society groups of the country - including Tunisia's national labour union, employers' union, order of lawyers and human rights league - negotiated talks between secular parties and the ruling Islamist-leaning Ennahada Party, ensuring that they agree to a "road map" that would be the founding stone in developing pluralistic democracy in Tunisia.

The Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet had their work cut out for them since they launched their activities in the summer of 2013. Through coordinated efforts, the Quartet was able to bring together leaders of two dozen political parties and secular groups to find a solution to the country's political crisis, following Ben Ali's departure and the murder of opposition leader Mohamed Brahmi, which was beginning to threaten the country's unity and stability. 

As Tunisian expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Sarah Chayes, aptly put it, the hard-won democracy of the country was a result of the "breakdown and widespread disavowal of standard political processes, and the ability of external actors to step in and serve as bludgeons and mediators, both." The roadmap presented by the quartet - a coalition between the Tunisian General Labour Union (UGTT), the Tunisian Confederation of Industry, Trade and Handicrafts (UTICA), the Tunisian Human Rights League (LTDH) and the Tunisian Order of Lawyers - was accepted by all stakeholders, including both the ruling and opposition parties. In fact, the then ruling Ennahada Party agreed to dissolve the incumbent government and form an independent election commission, among other terms mentioned in the road map. 

The quartet was made of different, unrelated groups with distinct goals. "The quartet was a disparate entity, made of groups that did not necessarily see eye to eye, historically," says Sarah Chayes in The Guardian (October 9, 2015). "So there had to be a kind of peacemaking within the quartet before it could perform its function." The quartet did not have a token role of speaking "elegant words" or taking a "certain stance" on the issues. It spent sleepless nights trying to come up with a consensual solution to the political crisis, and helped as well as "threatened" political leaders to come up with a long term solution that could put an end to the impasse. 

While in many other countries, including Bangladesh, it's difficult to imagine such a powerful voice outside the government managing to take the frontline to address and resolve issues of national import, the members of the Quartet have succeeded in having that kind of influence that can mobilise an entire population, while commanding attention from the upper echelons of the state, after years of trying to cement their role as true representatives of ordinary people. The Tunisian General Labour Union (UGTT), for example, fought for the rights of Tunisians since its inception, beginning with the fight for independence from France during the 1940s and 50s. UGTT's founder Farhat Hached is revered as a hero of the Tunisian independence movement, and was fundamental in ensuring that the body retained its distinct, non-partisan entity – something that labour unions in other Arab countries have been unable to achieve. In late 1983, UGTT participated and led the bread riots (resulting from a rise in bread price due to an IMF imposed austerity programme), and during Ben Ali's regime, it was steadfast in its demand for wage hikes and improvements in working conditions, thus winning the hearts and loyalty of the working population of the country.  In fact, many Tunisians have expressed that the UGTT represents Tunisians better than any political party and certainly enjoys more legitimacy from the citizens of the country. Just consider the fact that this is the only institution in the country that rivalled Ben Ali's ruling party only through the basis of its large membership and focus on multiple local structures. 

Tunisian Human Rights League was forced to shut down following a crackdown on the 20-year old organisation during Ben Ali's regime but still persisted in carrying out their activities in secrecy. The League's Vice President Ali Ziddini has gone on record to say that they would hold secret meetings in someone's house, while the government's security services surrounded the building, keeping it under surveillance. After Ben Ali's ouster, the association's role in ensuring democracy in the country was further entrenched, as they rebuild the organisation while handling a "flood of citizen complaints about treatment at the hands of Ben Ali."  

The Tunisian Bar Association is the oldest member of the quartet, as it was founded in 1887. The members of the association, like their counterparts of UGTT, led the movement for independence through their understanding of constitutional principles and republican values. As the president of the association Mohamed Fadhel Mahfoudh said in an interview, they succeed in standing their ground because their bylaws were democratic which "vaccinated" them against "efforts at co-option." 

Like in several other countries, the employer's union of Tunisia enjoys adequate economic clout in the country. What sets them apart, however, is their decision to join the quartet, joining forces with the country's labour union for the first time since independence, thereby enabling the quartet to be a powerful, united force to reckon with.  

The Quartet's triumph in ensuring a smooth democratic transition can also be credited to their successful attempts at getting the then ruling Ennahada Party – that won the first election in the country – to agree to share power with other parties and civil society groups. Ennahada also accepted the reforms demanded of them and voluntarily ceded power to a technocratic, national unity government – Nidaa Tounes – in 2014, following protests. In fact, in a Washington Post article (October 24, 2014), Rachid Ghannouchi, founder and chairman of Tunisia's Ennahada Party, stressed that "sacrificing party interest in this way was a small price to pay for national unity."  

Even though the context of the Quartet's triumph in paving the road to democracy is unique, there are lessons that we can take from Tunisia's success. The role of Bangladesh's civil society in ensuring democracy - be it during the Pakistani regime or the 1990's Movement of Democracy or even the demand for fair trials for war criminals of 1971 – is widely acknowledged and accepted. However, the function of the once powerful civil society has more or less been diluted in the last decade or so. A vigorous civil society can play an important role in strengthening citizens' positive engagement with the state, thereby proving to be a vital partner for the government. Instead of considering their suggestions as "anti-state", the government needs to be willing to allocate a space where civil society is given the liberty to question political actions and present their recommendations without fear or doubt. The civil society is one body that should be allowed to function freely in any country that professes to be democratic. 

On the other hand, we should also look at the reasons behind the National Dialogue Quartet's success in entrenching democracy in Tunisia. Instead of focussing on individual interests, they worked together to, in Sarah Chayes words, compel "inexperienced and sometimes bitter and refractory politicians to bridge the divides." Over the years, civil society groups in Bangladesh seem to have moved away from mass movements that provoked a change in the way things are run, to a more individualistic stance, where every group seems more interested in pursuing their own agenda. 

The members of Tunisia's National Dialogue Quartet have also been able to hold solid bargaining power in the country's political sphere, because they have, over time, been successful in securing the approval of the Tunisian population at large. Their "road map" was a detailed, laborious exercise that took months but was eventually accepted by all – be it the ruling party, the opposition or ordinary Tunisians. It's probably time for the civil society of Bangladesh to be more connected to general people of the country, to seek their approval. Instead of focusing on a seemingly elitist stance that gives more importance to rhetoric than action, our civil society members should closely involve and engage the general populace, thereby letting the citizenry know that they hope to work for them, with them. 

It goes without saying that in order for democracy to survive in a country, we need an active, productive, engaging civil society that needs to be given the space to function efficiently. While it's the civil society's responsibility to engage stakeholders to consider them as serious negotiators of change, the government needs to realise that it is not the sole agent of democracy; it needs (a lot of) help from those that represent the public – and in this case, this role is fulfilled by our civil society. That's the biggest lesson that we, as a nation, can learn from Tunisia's achievement.  

The writer is a Senior Editorial Assistant, The Daily Star.