The recent electoral victories of Islamist parties in Tunisia, Egypt and Morocco gave birth to many theories, prophecies and fantasies all around the world.
In Algeria, all Islamist parties’ leaders seem to believe they’ll be the victors of the upcoming legislative elections. But at least two conditions would need to be met beforehand: the elections need to be clean (we have made-in-Algeria transparent boxes for that), and the Islamist parties need to unite. Needless to say that both conditions aren’t easy to meet.
As usual, my post’s topic has little to do with its introduction. I was actually wondering why the heck the Islamist parties consider themselves and are considered as the defenders of Islam and its practice.
I remember in last Ramadhan, MSP leader complained to the press about the absence of a mosque in the ghetto where he lives with his Islamist and non-Islamist politician associates. He said that it was a shame that they had to go elsewhere to make group prayers. And I thought, he speaks of a group prayer so many others do pray there as well, so why was it him who brought the topic up? Why was it not say an RND or FNA or FLN or RCD or whatever party member who talked about this?
It is like only the Islamist parties own all the rights to discuss about Islam.
Another example could be the Big Mosque of Algiers that Bouteflika plans to build so that he’s remembered by the future generations. I must say I like the project, if done properly, and I am OK with it so long as its name is not changed to Djame3 Abdekka.
But what do we hear about it? The Islamists and presidential alliance parties love the project and many of the so-called democrats hate it. Isn’t it possible for an Islamist to be against this very project? Being against the project is not being against Islam or mosques after all. On the other hand, the only critic I hear from our pseudo democrats is, “why waste so much money on this useless project when we need schools and hospitals?” It’s like the state budget is not enough to build the mosque AND the schools/hospitals the country needs. Also, these democrats are not all secularists and the project is more than just a mosque. So why do they all have to be against it? They could at least find less stupid arguments. Too funny.
My last example is not about the Islamists.
I talked about Saadi and his book in a previous post. Another book, about Abane, was published some time ago. What are the common points between these two books? Each attempts to defend the memory of a Kabyle personality, and both are written by Kabyles. Here too, why do we not have non-Kabyle people writing (positively) about Abane? Are all kabyles obliged to agree with what Abane or Amirouche did during the war? And do all the non-Kabyles have to be neutral or disagree with them?
These are but some examples on two obvious groups. There are many others…
The Algerian pouvoir and political class is clanic. And it seems that this not enough and now we have specific topics/opinions reserved to specific groups. I am aware that the population, when it doesn’t try to copycat what the pseudo elite says, is not very segmented. But I do question this state, do we have to live in separate segments?