Algeria still trapped by its dogmas

He recalled, with regret, the current state of relations and reaffirmed the Kingdom's willingness to engage in frank, sincere and responsible dialogue to end this impasse, which has now lasted for half a century. Already in 2018, he proposed the creation of a joint political dialogue mechanism, and in 2021 he also affirmed that the problems would never come from Morocco.

This renewed offer of openness and empathy towards our eastern neighbor certainly honors the kingdom, which remains faithful to its traditions and its constant willingness to engage in sincere dialogue. It is hoped that it will enable Algerian leaders to choose this path and initiate the long-awaited direct dialogue needed to break the political deadlock that is hampering the entire Maghreb region. However, for those who know Algeria, its political-military system remains frozen in the outdated dogmas of a bygone era. For the leaders of this country, any compromise with Morocco is seen as a failure and a betrayal.

To understand this phenomenon, it is necessary to look back at the history of this country. Since Algeria's independence, the National Liberation Front (FLN) and the National People's Army (ANP) have imposed a revolutionary and Third Wordlist narrative on the young, and nascent state. To this day, these two institutions monopolize power and present themselves as the sole legitimate representatives of the people, speaking on their behalf and defending their ideals. They have become the embodiment of this revolution, which sees itself as infallible and above criticism. They have imposed themselves on the people as the guarantors of national unity and the defenders of a revolutionary internationalist ideology that has not evolved since then.

Over the years, this dogma, which has become a national ideology by force, prohibits any opposition to the Algerian state. Any voice criticizing this deep state is considered treasonous and a threat to national cohesion. The FLN and the ANP have thus become the heart and lungs of the country, centralizing and disseminating the state's ideology. They both provide after-sales service for this ideology, including its obsessions with Morocco and many other countries. These two institutions have taken over the entire state, controlling the army, diplomacy, the media, and entire sections of society such as education, management, and propaganda.

Through this policy of monopolizing public space, the FLN and the ANP have enshrined a narrow vision of Algerian politics and history, which over time has become deeply ingrained in the collective subconscious. Algiers became anti-imperialist, a Mecca for revolutionaries, defending all causes, just and unjust, and forgetting that of the Algerian people. This international aura, which lasted during the heyday of the Cold War, quickly melted away like snow in the sun with the popular uprising of 1988 and the collapse of the Eastern Bloc.

In 1988, the Algerian population took to the streets to protest against oppression, corruption and unemployment. The army took a major step by temporarily easing its grip, adopting a façade of pluralism through a constitutional overhaul in 1989 and the organization of new elections. These were held in 1991 and resulted in the Islamic Salvation Front winning the first round with 48% of the vote. The FLN then lost its monopoly and the army, fearing it would lose its power, put an end to the democratic process. This marked the beginning of the civil war and the dark decade that caused thousands of deaths and displaced persons.

The military intervened again to restore the FLN to power despite popular rejection. At the same time, the system helped new parties to emerge, which joined the new government, sometimes with an Islamic slant, but without any real popular base. All the changes made after the political tsunami of 1988 led to the fall of some figures and the rise of others. But the dogmas and ideology of the deep state remained unchanged.

Paradoxically, the revolutionary socialist dogma of the 20th century, on which the Algerian military relied, fell into disuse throughout the world, except in Algeria. Algerian voices were raised to denounce this suffocation of society, which destroyed individual freedoms. The government then introduced liberal reforms that enriched one caste but frustrated the others. In the countries of the former Eastern Bloc, several adopted the liberal system, with varying degrees of success, including Russia. Even in China, the Communist Party also reformed to adopt market laws and modernize its economy to become the power it is today.

As a result of these failures to adapt, the Algerian political system has become even more rigid due to a lack of genuine openness to its regional and international environment. The popular protest movement known as Hirak has intensified, continues to simmer, and prevents the adoption of fundamental reforms. The regime is entrenched in its hardline stance, repressing opponents and persecuting journalists. It is increasingly tense and isolated on the international stage, and on bad terms with many states.

These contradictions came to light during President Tebboune's recent interview with representatives of the national media. One of the journalists asked him the awkward question of whether the country's foreign policy was based on immutable principles, or on interests and pragmatism. The president asked him to provide an example to support his reasoning, while indicating that he understood the meaning of his question. ‘To please others, should I stop helping the Sahrawis?’ the president asked him in response.

As a result, Algerian leaders remain trapped in the same political logic and culture that still shapes their thinking today and prevents Algeria from adapting to the world around it. Their dogmas have become so rigid and dangerous for their own country, as well as for the entire region. It is this paralysis that prevents any serious internal debate and any questioning of the choices made since independence. And it is this immobility that explains their refusal of any helping hand or assistance from outside.

This blockage stems from the revolutionary narrative with which the army has imbued the whole of society. The army considers itself the legitimate representative of the people and their spokesperson in defending the ideals that once gave the country its aura. It is therefore the guardian of the temple, the guarantor of national unity as inherited from the period of liberation. Any criticism of its dogmas, which have been elevated to absolute values, is therefore seen as opposition to the army and is likely to be considered treason against the nation.

Such a system, which blocks the progress of its own country and controls the lives of its citizens, cannot respond to appeals to reason and outstretched hands. The Algerian military will never opt for appeasement, except under necessity or duress. But the royal gesture, reiterated during the Throne Day celebrations, is primarily addressed to the Algerian people and its driving forces, who do not necessarily share the warmongering vision of the generals who want to make Morocco their existential and eternal enemy. The Sovereign's outstretched hand goes beyond the current situation to simply become part of Morocco's history and traditions.