The arrival of Kais Saied to the Tunisian political scene and his consequent autocratic decisions indicated a major “setback” to the revolution. The phenomenon of Saied and his initial wide popular support represented a wide dissatisfaction with the revolution’s political and economic outcomes. Hence, it is important to analyze why people’s aspirations did not materialize and what was the root causes of the failures of the political system that emerged after the revolution. This paper analyzes the Tunisian revolution from its very inception and surveys the key different stages that undermined its potential. It asks the question of why electoral democracy failed to produce a system that can lead a socioeconomic change. It also investigates how neoliberal norms managed to hijack the revolution from its inception and changed its trajectory. While there are multiple papers that provide reasons for the failed democratic transition, this paper focuses on the revolution itself and the ideas that motivated it. It argues that the Tunisian revolution was destined not to be radical enough to bring a satisfying change. The paper analyzes a legacy of lousy revolutionary fundamentals. It looks at the facade of ideological contestation that was encapsulated in the competition between the Islamists and the secularists in a critical fashion and in consideration of the idea of the “deep state.” The paper utilizes the concept of Refolution as adopted by Asef Bayat to describe the revolutions of the Arab spring to explain the current phenomenon of Saied. It concludes that the revolution bore the seeds of its setbacks from its inception. Though the political elites are publicly condemned and seen as responsible for the current situation, they were just a natural part of the historical process that unfolded. The situation that has been reached was the most probable outcome that could have been achieved by the “refolution.” However, the revolution, for what it was and for its limited trajectory, was successful in bearing positive outcomes. Those positive outcomes hold some seeds of hope if it is seen as part of the democratic learning process. That process should not be seen in a linear fashion. It should not be binarily categorized as success or failure. However, it is important to address the roots of the arrested transition for the benefit of feature movements. For that purpose, a discussion of the negative aspects of “refolutions” and how to avoid them is needed.