A constitution that lets the president abolish the national assembly and give control of every power of the state apparatus to him is not a democratic constitution.
How so? Who determines that objectively?
You have a point if the president (his mandate) is not elected directly by the people.
But he is very much elected by the people....he is a democratic agent.
The debate on separation of powers w.r.t democracy (and how they can overrule each other or if there is hierarchy) is different one past that becomes all together subjective exercise.
Even if it is constitutionally legal what the Tunisian president did is indeed a coup.
If its constitutionally legal.....then it certainly is not a coup.
Coup (in a constitutional entity) means overthrow of constitutional-derived power.
The question (for this context) lies more with on whom the constitution delegates to interpret its law at highest level.
Is it executive or is it an apex court etc.
The issue here I believe is the constitutional court has not been formed yet...
But apparently there was a deadline (of one year) in the constitution:
Tunisia’s President Kais Saied said on Tuesday that he refused to sign a bill to set up the long-delayed constitutional courtbecause it did not take into consideration constitutional deadlines.
thearabweekly.com
We are in something of an impasse....but that cannot be called a coup IMO.
There are always these teething troubles when you have mixture of revolution, ruling class entrenched and you have legacies and mistrust....leading to final authorities (to ensure check and balance system) not being filled at same rate.