National Movement and National Liberation War (1919-1962) : Trajectories, Networks, Groups, Group Dynamics

This project focuses on the study of group dynamics in four “major” contexts of contemporary Algerian history (1936, 1944, 1951, and 1962). It is structured around four “unitary” socio-historical processes: the rise of the Popular Front and the Algerian Muslim Congress (CMA, 1936); World War II and the dynamics of the “Friends of the Manifesto and Liberty” movement (1944); the 1947 Algerian Statute and the redeployment of nationalist parties within the Algerian Front for the Defense and Respect of Freedoms (FADRL, 1951); and national independence along with the fragmentation/recomposition of the FLN/ALN in the summer of 1962.

The first context (1936) concerns the inscription of Algerian nationalism within a “pragmatic” political and social approach, transcending the divisions within the national movement. Drawing inspiration from the French model (the unification of leftist forces), Algerian nationalists organized themselves into an unprecedented political grouping. The experience of the Algerian Muslim Congress (1936–1938) highlights the importance of political actors and popular mobilization around the project, which explains the research interest in “lesser-known” actors in traditional historiography. Researching networks in this context relates to the opposition/overlap of two modalities of Algerian nationalism: one in France, led by Algerian immigrant workers, and the other in Algeria, represented by a new generation of political leaders and activists whose training and career paths differed fundamentally from those of the Algerian nationalists in France (elected officials, professionals, teachers, etc.).

The second context (1944) reflects a large-scale political and social movement. Popular enthusiasm around the “Manifesto of the Algerian People” (March 1943) shows that, despite the experience of the 1936 Algerian Muslim Congress, the creation of a united front combining different currents of Algerian nationalism was a political option for nationalist parties. In this context, it is important—especially using newly accessible archives—to trace the trajectories of the actors from the 1936 Congress to 1944 and to re-examine the networks of this period.

The third context (1951), marked by the formation of the Algerian Front for the Defense and Respect of Freedoms (FADRL), should be analyzed in light of the new 1947 organic statute of Algeria and its corollary, the general elections (second college) of June 17, 1951. FADRL was conceived as a political union to counter the fragmentation of nationalist forces. The “failure” of this third regrouping reflects the “exhaustion” of the philosophy underpinning the political struggle of nationalist parties (renunciation of violence, participation in elections, founding newspapers, engagement in social life through associations, scouting, etc.). The goal here is to understand the foundations that allowed the unitary hypothesis to persist while highlighting its fragility. Groups and actors are studied to reconstruct individual and collective trajectories.

The fourth process (1962) is inseparable from the national movement. Although the FLN crisis of the summer of 1962 occurred over a short time and specific events, it remains “fully understandable within the long term.” The formation of alliances, groups (notably in Tlemcen and Tizi Ouzou), and the wilayism system (grouping into regional political entities: the wilayas) followed logics rooted both in internal FLN/ALN oppositions and crises between 1954 and 1962, and in divisions inherited from the earlier national movement. Key actors of this period positioned themselves according to corporatist and partisan affiliations (Centralists, militants from pre-1954 parties: ENA/PPA/MTLD, AOMA [Ulemas], PCA, UDMA, members of the MTLD’s Special Organization [OS], etc.). Actors, groups, and networks operated in a new dynamic—the post-independence context—where personal and collective strategies, the establishment of networks and influence groups, and negotiations were framed not around confrontation or the assertion of rights, but around “succession.”