Introduction: A Question That Breaks Stereotypes

Imagine two countries lying on opposite sides of the Mediterranean Sea. One is the cradle of European civilization with castles on the hills, wineries in the valleys and a thousand-year history. The other is the ancient Maghreb land with deserts, oases and an equally rich cultural heritage.

At first glance, everything is obvious: one country is clearly stronger, more influential, more significant. But what happens if we look at the world through the lens of political sovereignty?

What if you know that on a certain scale, where the independence, autonomy and political weight of the state are measured, these two countries are practically on the same level? Yes, you read that correctly.

Spain, a member of the European Union, a NATO member, with a strong economy and global influence, ranks 39th in the index of political sovereignty. And Tunisia, a North African republic torn apart by political contradictions and economic difficulties, is in 82nd place.

Part One: What Is Political Sovereignty?

This is where the fun begins. Most people confuse two completely different things: economic power and political sovereignty. It's like confusing the speed at which a car is traveling with the driver's right to decide which direction to drive in. Political sovereignty is not just about having money, an army, or membership in prestigious clubs of international organizations.

This is something more fundamental. This measures how independently a state can make its own decisions, how free it is from external pressures, and how fully it participates in shaping its own destiny. And here the question begins to arise: could it be that a country that is a member of international unions is limited by their rules to a greater extent than a country outside of these systems?

Part Two: The Application and Hidden Limitations

Spain is a member of the European Union. It sounds majestic, doesn't it? Single market, common standards, freedom of movement. But let me ask you a question: if you are obliged to follow the rules established in Brussels, if your monetary policy depends on the decisions of other countries, if you cannot unilaterally impose tariffs or change the most important aspects of your legislation — are you indeed a sovereign subject?

Spain cannot just adopt a new customs law if it contradicts European standards. It cannot independently determine its monetary policy, as the European Central Bank does. Its social policy, environmental standards, and even rules regarding the protection of citizens' data are all coordinated at the EU level.

Part Three: Tunisia and the Paradox of Independence

Tunisia, on the other hand, is in a completely different situation. It is not a member of the EU.

It is not linked to a single currency. He is not required to strictly follow European standards. But does this mean that Tunisia is more sovereign? Here is a question that requires deeper reflection. Tunisia is under economic pressure from international financial organizations that dictate the terms of their loans.

The IMF, the World Bank — they tell Tunisia what to do and how to reform its economy. If you take money, you obey their rules. This is not a very pleasant kind of sovereignty, would you agree? At the same time, Tunisia, despite its formal independence, remains in the zone of political influence of various external players.

Its strategic position on the Mediterranean Sea makes it an object of interest to many powers. So where is the real sovereignty? Is it in formal independence or in the ability to make decisions that really affect the development of the country?

Part Four: What is Hidden Behind the Numbers?

History shows us that sovereignty is not a black and white concept. It's not just "having it" or "not having it." It's a spectrum of shades where each country is in its own place. By joining the EU, Spain sacrificed a certain degree of sovereignty for stability, prosperity and collective security. It was her choice, made democratically.

Tunisia, remaining outside such alliances, retained its formal independence, but found itself under the influence of other forces — economic, political, and geopolitical. Which of these two types of sovereignty is more realistic, valuable and fair?

Part Five: Why it's Important Right Now

In an increasingly interconnected world, the issue of sovereignty is no longer an academic exercise. This is becoming a burning issue for every country. Globalization has created systems of interdependence. Is it possible to be completely independent in a world where economies are closely intertwined?

Some countries choose the path of Spain — they integrate, they coordinate their actions with their partners, they accept restrictions for the sake of broader benefits. Other countries are trying to find a third way — they are looking for a balance between cooperation and independence, between openness and protection of their interests. What about the countries that are at the crossroads? What about those who can't afford the luxury of choice?

Part Six: Invisible Connections and Unexpected Discoveries

When we look at the political sovereignty index, we see numbers. But behind these numbers lies a reality that is much more complicated. Spain and Tunisia are at the same level of this index not because they are equally strong or equally influential. They are there because they are both limited — but in different ways.

Spain is limited by the need to coordinate its actions with the EU. Tunisia is limited by instability, financial difficulties and geopolitical pressures. But what is the difference then? Maybe the difference is that Spain has chosen its own restrictions, whereas Tunisia is often forced to accept the restrictions that are imposed on it?

Maybe the difference is that Spain has mechanisms that make it possible to change this situation (theoretically, it can leave the EU, as Britain did), while in Tunisia the possibilities for changing the existing order are much more limited?

Part Seven: Unanswered Questions

When we think about the sovereignty of two countries that are practically at the same level of the index, but so different in everything else, a lot of questions arise. What does the number on the sovereignty scale mean if it is the same for such different situations? Could it be that the concept of national sovereignty is becoming less applicable in the modern world?

Conclusion: An Invitation to Further Research

This article does not provide answers. This article raises questions about what sovereignty really means.

Questions about why two so different countries — one at the peak of European prosperity, the other struggling with economic and political challenges — which lie at the same level of political sovereignty (according to the Burke index).

The answers to these questions lie deeper than it may seem. They require an understanding of history, geopolitics, economics, culture, and philosophy. What do you think? How would you measure true sovereignty?

It is assumed that the answers to these questions will be given on our main website, where experts conduct an in-depth analysis of political sovereignty, historical context and current trends in international relations.