On the tenth and eleventh of December 1960 people took to the streets of different Algerian towns to demonstrate against the French occupation and dominance. France regarded Algeria as part of the French territory without giving the Arabs full political rights. Against this discriminatory and colonial attitude, a resistance movement was rising that started the “Algerian war” in 1954. The FNL – the National Liberation Front – was founded and became the basis for the future dominant party and for the armed forces. A bloody war began. France answered with violence and torture. Force was answered with force and that still characterizes Algerian politics today.
Few people like the French writer Albert Camus, who was born in Algeria, tried to find a common future for an Algeria as part or at least partner of France and for a France which would treat the Algerians as equals. He criticized heavily the maltreatment of the Algerian population with detailed studies, especially in the province of Kabylia. But he also feared that the force used by France would be met with equally cruel force by the Algerian resistance and that would spoil the future of Algeria. Unfortunately, the development of the independent Algeria proved him right. During all my visits to this fascinating country I could recognize the love-hate relationship with France, but the ‘hate’ side of this relationship was used by the regimes in Algeria – as well as by the Islamist terrorists - as a justification of force against its own people.
At any rate, exactly 60 years ago people went to the streets and demonstrated against the French colonial masters. Interestingly, the leadership of the resistance movement was somewhat surprised and not incredibly happy about those relatively spontaneous manifestations. The president of the FLN situated in Tunis, Ferhat Abbas, asked the people to leave the streets and go back home. He wanted the FLN to do the revolution according to their own plans. Certainly, Algeria is in many ways a special case, but it is also a prototype of post-colonial failures of the political class that repeated the mistakes and violence of the colonial masters.
Independence troubled by conflicts and war
French president de Gaulle who planned a visit to Algeria during these days in December 1960 was surprised by the popular outcry and changed his strategy, which was until that time to fight for a semi-independent state with French domination. He organized a referendum on the mainland France and in Algeria in January 1961 where people overwhelmingly voted in support of an independent Algeria. Sincere negotiations between France and the FLN started and led to an agreement in 1962. James McDougall wrote in his “A History of Algeria”: “In July 1962, almost all Algerians could be wholly and spontaneously of one mind about one thing: they and their country were free, independent and overjoyed. The war was over and with it the colonial era.” It is true that the colonial era was over. However, the war was not. The opponents in the following wars were different: they were all found inside Algeria. The Algerian independence completed decolonialization of North Africa – with the exception of the Spanish enclaves in Morocco and Western Sahara. However, it did not create a united and prosperous Maghreb. Even Algeria itself, blessed with enormous energy resources did not become rich, at least not its population at large.
Very soon splits and rivalries inside the Algerian leadership became visible. One of the leaders of the FLN, Ben Bella became the first president - but not for long. He was overthrown by the young military leader Boumediene, with the support of the extremely young foreign minister Abdelaziz Bouteflika, who later became president. Years of dictatorship and authoritarian rule followed. A strong military rule was established which enforced the opacity of the whole political system. When at the elections in the beginning of the 1990s there was a danger of Islamist parties gaining the power, the military intervened, nullified the first round and cancelled the second round. A bloody war started, with many Algerians killed and missing. It was unclear who was killed and deported by the Islamist underground forces – FIS and GIA – and who became victim of the security forces.
Islamists versus Security Forces
I was part of a delegation by the European Parliament who – after long negotiations with the Algerian authorities – were allowed to visit the country in this critical period. Our fact-finding mission met with many representatives of the government, the parliament, and different human rights groups. Nevertheless, it was not possible for us either to look through the opaque structures of Algerian society. The revolutionary myth of the Moudjahidin who were fighting the French colonial power, avoided any sincere questioning of the Algerian authorities. These authoritarian forces in power did not want to recognize that it was a big mistake to exclude alternative political forces. What they should have done was to mobilize all the democratic forces in the fight against Islamist terrorists. Instead, they tried to organize alternative Islamist parties to divert the voters towards those Islamist politicians, which accepted the system and its power structures dominated by the military. Thereby they moved themselves towards “soft” Islamism.
I had numerous discussions with one of the historical leaders of the FLN – Hoicine Ait Ahmed – about the events at the beginning of the 1990s. He founded the Socialist Party FFS in 1963, when he saw that Ben Bella - and all leaders after him - chose an authoritarian way. He attacked the cancelation of the elections which would have resulted in an Islamist government. I could find some justification for that response of the military and regarded Ait Ahmed as being too soft concerning the Islamists. To cancel elections and forbid a popular party is a very difficult and problematic decision. But to oppose an election of a party which was - according its program - ready to abolish free and fair elections could be the only way out to save democracy. Should one accept elections which could be the last one? Despite these differences Ait Ahmed and I agreed that finally only a democratic state with equally democratic parties can make the people resistant against the demagogues of the Islamist movement.
Sadly, the power structure in Algeria stayed opaque and authoritarian. The military clung to its power and enhanced a corrupt system (le pouvoir) on the basis of their selfish use of energy resources and their exports. In a speech at one of the party congresses of the FFS near Algiers I criticized this sclerotic and corrupt system to the satisfaction of the delegates. This speech was also an opportunity to express my great sympathies for the country and its people, who have been for decades maltreated by the colonial masters and later deprived of their right to enjoy democracy and material progress by the Algerian leaders.
Demonstrations but no regime change
Algeria experienced new demonstrations during the Arab spring from 2010 to 2012. However, the leadership under Abdelaziz Bouteflika who was brought into the country from exile and became president in 1999 outlived the protests. As I was election observer in Oran at the election to his second term, where I could also interview many people in the streets of Algiers and Oran, I think that in the first years of his presidency Bouteflika was supported by the people. He promised to end the civil war and achieved some success. But he could not let go of power and was more and more surrounded by crooks. He could still survive the first big demonstrations by using ample resources to buy off many of the protesters.
Less than ten years later protests started again. This time they were triggered by the announcement of the obviously sick, partly paralyzed and in the meantime incapable President Bouteflika to run for a fifth term. That was too much. He had to withdraw his application. Ironically, it was the same military leaders who made him president before, that now forced him to resign. New elections were organized and another man from the existing power structure became president. The Covid-19 pandemic and the lockdowns saved the power from being challenged by continuous demonstrations after these elections, which, as many thought, had been rigged. Again, the people kick-started a change but could not collect its fruits. As historian James McDougall characterized the situation years before was still true: “Le pouvoir had collapsed into a black hole, sucking resources, opportunities and the very future of the country into self.”
Algeria is a sad example of colonial violence which was answered with violence by the resistance forces. The people who have been subjugated by the colonial power were robbed of the possibility to live in a democratic country. The military in cooperation with corrupt politicians established an opaque system. The fight against the Islamist terrorists was used to strengthen the authoritarian power instead of mobilizing all democratic forces against those forces which wanted to get elected in order to end democracy and free elections. Neither the demonstrations during the “Arab spring”, nor the recent demonstrations could achieve a regime change and a democratic turnaround. The Algerian people at large still cannot profit from the vast energy resources and live in a prosperous and fully democratic Algeria. The revolution which started in 1954 and had a popular uprising in 1960 is still unfinished in 2020.
Picture: normalityrelief
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 und then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.