Gilbert Grandguillaume, an anthropologist and expert on Arab issues, discusses the recent massacres in Algeria with Jean- Pierre Tuquoi
Are the reasons for the mounting violence in Algeria to be found in the countrys recent history?
There is a historical link, but it has nothing to do with a culturalist approach that sees Algerians primarily as Muslims or barbarians. Whats taking place is a horrific and wholesale settling of scores.
Some of it goes back to the events of 1990 and 1991. The villages where massacres took place recently are located in areas that voted for the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) at the 1990 local elections and the first round of the 1991 general election [the second round was cancelled by the government].
Its not impossible that the army is happy to see them punished. In villages that voted for the FIS, many mayors were later replaced by communal delegates who performed the same functions. Some of those in turn were murdered. Thats another source of violence.
If one believes in the settling of scores explanation, account also has to be taken of the fact that the vote for the FIS constituted a massive rejection of the government.
Can that explain why 300 to 400 people get massacred in a village?
No, but sources of tension in Algerian society and hatred of the government are always present in the background. They can easily be revived and offered a new target by rumours and manipulation.
But I agree that the scale of violence is such that one probably has to delve further into the past.
Scores are being settled today whose origins lie in conflicts resulting from Algerian independence in 1962, such as the massacre of 60 000 to 100 000 harkis that took place only months after independence.
The harkis were Algerians who joined armed French militias of the same type that the present Algerian government has set up in villages. After independence, the harkis were not allowed into France, and ended up prisoners in their own country. And they were killed.
Harkis were members of families and tribes. There are persistent grudges that have been reactivated. Expressions such as harki or son of a harki are used as insults by either side. A harki is someone who has betrayed his country.
The harki problem was an extension of other problems connected with the Algerian war. There was the fight against the colonial power by the National Liberation Front (FLN), but there were other conflicts between members of the FLN and those of Messali Hadjs Algerian National Movement.
Theres talk of family feuds, too.
Traditional hatred between villages, families and clans the result of breaches of honour or disputes over land lingers on. It resurfaces as violent brawls at football matches.
That doesnt explain the present upsurge in violence.
There may have been just as much violence in previous years without one being aware of it. News is managed by the armed Islamist groups and the government. And public opinion has been made vulnerable by the war: people tend to believe any rumour, however wild. There is a preventive form of violence triggered by false rumours.
Recently the state has encouraged the population to defend itself and has armed militia groups. In so doing it has recognised its own inability to protect the people and encouraged an avalanche of violence, only a fraction of which we ever hear about. Im sure it has been caused by the setting up of armed militias. Either they carry out such operations or spur on the hatred of the opposite camp.
Furthermore, the climate of institutional violence in which the law has broken down is a breeding ground for delinquency among unemployed young people.
The picture you paint is of a violent society.
Algeria is a harsh society. Look at its schools. Children are often beaten and victimised. Ordinary people have to resort to bribery for their basic needs. Their feeling of disgruntlement found an outlet in the 1991 vote for the FIS. It was as much a protest vote as a vote for Islamism. Even that outlet was violently rejected by the regime.
In 1973, you could already sense the populations contempt for the government. The first riots came in the early Eighties. Only a small spark was needed for large- scale violence to break out.
Didnt that violence exist under colonial rule?
Yes, it did. Native Algerians had no recognised rights, just relative ones. Many elections were rigged. Independence should have allowed the restoration of the rule of law. But an oppressive system was set up. When there is no law and a regime governs by force, violence is never far behind. And violence spawns violence, especially when there is no hope of the law and peoples rights being restored.
Whats the most urgent thing to be done now?
The law and peoples rights must be restored. The regime will gain no credit by organising rigged elections. Confidence must be restored in the government. And the government must accept that its existence should reflect the will of the people.
The impression one still has is that the regime is not prepared to give up its total control of affairs. Im not calling on it to stand down, but it must agree to allow some breathing space for the various schools of thought in Algerian society. I cant see that happening without some kind of external mediation.
The United Nations secretary general Kofi Annans appeal to Algerias President Liamine Zeroual for an urgent solution is an important development.
Mediation must be discreet. Events have shown that no military victory is possible. And even if it were, it would probably be a bad thing anyway it would have the effect of placing Algeria in an even tighter straitjacket.