5 ms·
> Algeria has been called a "controlled democracy",[3] or a state where the military and "a select group" of unelected civilians—reportedly known to Algerians a
by mkl95 3y ago
> Algeria has been called a "controlled democracy",[3] or a state where the military and "a select group" of unelected civilians—reportedly known to Algerians as "le pouvoir" ("the power")—make major decisions, such as who should be president.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Algeria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Algeria
- mcny 3y agoJust two sentences prior to your quote, I think it is very relevant who is to blame: > A legacy of Algeria's bloody War of Independence from France (where an estimated 1.5 million Algerians were killed) is a powerful military and security apparatus that put a high value on secrecy.
- realusername 3y agoI would point more towards Russia as a model than France. Military state, powerful oligarchs ruling the country and most of the income coming from fossil fuels.
- bettercallsalad 3y agoEnlighten me but how is it any different than how US operates? In US, sure we vote but most elected members work for their donors and special interest groups who are effectively corporations run by oligarchs. So in other words it’s indirect elected oligarchy. I mean there is a reason why the approval rate of Congress is historically low at their twenties, if it’s truly of the people that would not be the case. It seems worse in Europe where EU and it’s unelected bureaucrats control everything. It seems to me in every world, it’s the selected group of powerful people mostly exerting their influence through money.
- roywiggins 3y agoPeople don't like Congress but they like their own congresspeople well enough. https://news.gallup.com/poll/162362/americans-down-congress-own-representative.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/162362/americans-down-congress-...
- alehlopeh 3y agoParent comment mentioned “military state” which should be more than enough to satisfy your desire for enlightenment on the difference between western democracies and totalitarian regimes.
- bettercallsalad 3y agoWell is the defence budget not the highest percentage spending of the GDP and more than combined of all 10 other top spendings? And military industrial complex is a reality, not just a cynical rhetoric going back to Eisenhower. Oh and the three letter agencies and their mindless spying on average citizen. I think in many ways average citizen not being aware of many of these dysfunctional realities is a far worse case than citizens of places where they know who runs the show.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago"Military state" does not mean "spends a lot on the military". It means that the military controls decisions (either overtly or covertly). That's not the case for the US, no matter how big the military budget is.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> not the case for the US, no matter how big the military budget is If anything, the U.S. military's budget having to plop production in every Congressional district speaks to who needs whom to get that money.
- robwwilliams 3y agoToo much Chomsky, not enough Rorty.
- sofixa 3y ago> It seems worse in Europe where EU and it’s unelected bureaucrats control everything. Citation very much needed. European parliament that votes on laws is directly elected; European commissioners that propose laws and have somewhat executive authority are indirectly elected (proposed by national governments, which are elected, and confirmed by the European parliament).
- dudul 3y agoSo, Algeria?
- trimistermota 3y agoRight, one country rules over another country. Forces it to fight a violent war and then the another country is to blame when the violence has side effects.
- EA-3167 3y agoWhen has Algeria not been a conquered state? Even before the Islamic conquest it was a plaything of various powers, and after the conquest it became an endless warring series of dynasties and caliphates.
- zeroonetwothree 3y agoIt’s never correct that a single party is to blame in such things
- akiselev 3y agoI find that blaming imperialism on the imperial aggressor is a safe and practical approach.
- Y_Y 3y agoWhat about fair or correct? Algerians are just as good as the French and produce just as many corrupt and incompetent bastards and politicians. Dividing the world into "good guys" and "bad guys" is a pretty effective heuristic, sure, but you can do better.
- pastage 3y agoI just watched The battle of Algiers it has a take on it, way before all the other more recent good guy wars. Of course we can blame France, but smaller nations are not blameless, apartheid was supported by many good guys.
- akiselev 3y agoThe world isn't "fair" or "correct" and it's bad guys all the way down. The French empire just tends to be one of the worst [1][2][3][4] with a sprinkle of modern state sponsored terrorism [5] for good measure. You can take solace that they're in good company in continental Europe, I guess? There are no saints here, but to act like France isn't completely responsible for it's empire building is obscene. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti_indemnity_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti_indemnity_controversy - crippled Haiti economically in revenge for independence for over a century. Still hasn't recovered. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamileke_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamileke_War - fought against Cameroon's independence [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malagasy_Uprising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malagasy_Uprising - found against Madagascar's independence, massacring much of the managerial class that ran the country, crippling it [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Indochina_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Indochina_War - Bloody fight against independence all of their Asian colonies resulting in hundreds of thousands dead, leading to the rise of communism in Vietnam and the subsequent wars in Indochina. [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior - French intelligence agents bombed a Greenpeace boat in New Zealand in 1985
- mkl95 3y agoAlgeria gained independence in the 60s, and they have been involved in several wars ever since. The current status quo is probably explained by the civil war that ended about 20 years ago.
- elchangri 3y agoNot really. Involved in exactly 0 wars. Algeria has a non-intervensionism policy and avoids wars. There was a civil war yes, but that’s it.
- dudul 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Algeria#Modern_Algeria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Algeria...
- cm2187 3y agoMight be worth mentioning that the algerians voted for the islamists in the early 90s which lead to a civil war and to the current semi-democratic regime.
- cat_plus_plus 3y agoI take it that prior to French occupation, Algeria was an exceptionally prosperous, safe and free country?
- nephanth 3y agoThis question makes little sense, Algeria had been under french occupation since 1830. Before the 2 industrial revolutions, and before a lot of current democraties were established. Its situation then is a very bad predictor of an hypothetical situation now. One thing is for sure, French occupation was very bad for the natives. There was a de facto segregation enforced. The French Algerians hoarded the riches (by possessing mist of the land), and Native Algerians didn't have voting rights or political power. Often used was the justification by so-called "advances" that colons had brought. But the truth is most of the infrastructure built only benefited French Algerians, and despite claims of bringing "civilization", education and alphabetization rates in Algeria were extremely low. Also regardless of the occupation, the extremely gruesome war hurt the country's economy deeply and traumatized all parties involved Source: a documentary i viewed a while ago on the Algerian war, I can find the reference if someone wants it (In French)
- cat_plus_plus 3y agoYou are assuming that technological and political advancements are likely to have happened independently everywhere without contact with civilizations that already developed them. Or that if Algerians developed them before French, they would have been any more enlightened. In fact, conditions necessary for technological advancements probably require some degree of enlightenment, although a very low bar by modern standards. So mostly you get to blame French for being first to become powerful and pity Algerians for not getting as much benefit as if they made all these inventions themselves or they were shared in a peaceful manner. Claim that they would have Internet to shut off if they were somehow isolated from the rest of the world since 1830 is pretty unlikely.
- yieldcrv 3y agolike a standing committee?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> a state where the military and "a select group" of unelected civilians—reportedly known to Algerians as "le pouvoir" ("the power") Reminds me of a hybrid between the Roman monarchy (king elected by a select group, i.e. the Senate) and Spartan Gerousia [1]. (Executive councils of lifetime appointments are unexplored in modern democracy. For cultures without an inbuilt paranoia of tyranny, it might be a better fit than a Presidential or Parliamentary system.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_Constitution
- z3t4 3y agoHierarchical organizations thrives with the press machine and broadcast television. But the internet allows us to communicate everyone-to-everyone. So in theory it might be more effective to communicate between each other instead of top-down.
- rightbyte 3y ago> Executive councils of lifetime appointments are unexplored in modern democracy The US supreme court?
- edgyquant 3y agoThe Supreme Court is by definition not an executive council.
- dataflow 3y agoI'm confused, so what aspect of that is democratic?
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoThere are Constitutional organs, like the President and legislature, who are elected. They don’t hold the power. But they aren’t powerless.
- uejfiweun 3y agoI mean this is kind of how the US works as well. The "select group" is basically the rich, who are free to pour as much money as they want into elections, and also control the media, making them essentially the rulers of the country (except for military matters).