People’s Democratic Republic of

Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research

Larbi Ben M’hidi University, Oum el Bouaghi

Faculty of Letters and Languages

Department of English

The Algerian-American “Founding Fathers”: Dimensions of Post- Wars

A Dissetation Submitted to the Faculty of letters and Languages,

Department of English, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the degree of

Master in Anglo-American Studies

Submitted by: AZEB Amina

Supervisor: FILALI Billel

Examiner: GHENNEM Fatima

2014-2015 Abstract

Following its , any nation would be exposed to huge devastation and disastrous political, economic and social situations; generally the post-revolutionary period is an era that is characterized by conflicts and disagreements between the leaders of that nation.

Algeria and the of America are two republics that represent good examples of these conflicts, this dissertation investigates the natures and dimensions of the post-independence conflicts in both countries; analyzing the struggles over determining the orientations and the futures of both as newly independent countries.

After independence, The Algerians failed to agree about the appropriate person to lead the nation, peaceful oppositions were made in addition to the military confrontations between the leaders and also the army; their main concerns were about reaching presidency and controlling all the reins of power.

Whereas the Americans differed about the political and economic systems that their nation would behold; the national patriots were split between two main political factions, each preferred and supported different theories.

Key word:

Algerian independence, American independence, conflicts, disagreements, oppositionists, internal wars, alliances, political parties, presidency, military coups.

I

Résumé

Après son indépendance, toute nation serait exposée à énorme dévastation et des situations politiques, économiques et sociales désastreuses; généralement la période postrévolutionnaire est une époque qui se caractérise par des conflits et des désaccords entre les dirigeants de cette nation.

L‟Algérie et les Etats-Unis d'Amérique sont deux républiques qui représentent de bons exemples de ces conflits, cette thèse étudie les natures et dimensions des conflits postindépendance dans les deux pays; analyser les luttes sur la détermination des orientations et l'avenir de tant de pays nouvellement indépendants.

Après l'indépendance, les Algériens n'a pas réussi à se mettre d'accord sur la personne appropriée pour diriger la nation, oppositions pacifiques ont été faites en plus des affrontements militaires entre les dirigeants et aussi l'armée; leurs principales préoccupations étaient sur le point d'atteindre la présidence et de contrôler toutes les rênes du pouvoir.

Alors que les Américains différaient sur les systèmes politiques et économiques que leur nation serait contempler; les patriotes nationaux ont été répartis entre les deux principales factions politiques, chacune des théories différentes préférés et soutenus.

II

الملخص

بؼذ االسخقالل، ٔمكه أن حخؼشض أْ دَنت إنّ دماس ٌائم َأَضاع سٕاسٕت َاقخصادٔت َاجخماػٕت كاسثٕت ػمُما

فخشة ما بؼذ انثُسة ٌٓ انحقبت انخٓ حخمٕز انصشاػاث َانخالفاث بٕه قادة األمت.

انجزائش َانُالٔاث انمخحذة األمشٔكٕت ٌما مه انجمٍُسٔاث انخٓ حمثم ومارج جٕذة نٍزي انصشاػاث، ٌزي األطشَحت

ححقق فٓ انطبائغ َأبؼاد انصشاػاث فٓ مشحهت ما بؼذ االسخقالل فٓ كال انبهذٔه َ ححهٕم انصشاػاث حُل ححذٔذ

انخُجٍاث ػهّ حذ سُاء كذَل مسخقهت حذٔثا.

بؼذ االسخقالل، فشم انجزائشٕٔه إنّ انُصُل إنّ حُافق حُل انشخص انمىاسب نقٕادة األمت ،مما أدِ إنّ ظٍُس

انمؼاسضت انسهمٕت باإلضافت إنّ انمُاجٍاث انؼسكشٔت بٕه قادة األمت َأٔضا انجٕش. كاوج مخاَفٍم انشئٕسٕت بشأن

انخُصم نهشئاست َانسٕطشة ػهّ كم مقانٕذ انسهطت.

فٓ حٕه اخخهف األمٕشكُٕن حُل انىظم انسٕاسٕت َاالقخصادٔت انخٓ ٔجب أن حىخٍجٍا أمخٍم؛ حم حقسٕم انُطىٕٕه بٕه

انفصائم انسٕاسٕت إنّ حزبٕه مخخهفٕه انشئٕسٕت، كم نً وظشٔاث مخخهفت.

III

Dedication

To my loving parents, brothers and friends.

To my dear husband and future son.

IV

Acknowledgements

This modest work would not have been accomplished without the help and blessing of

God, to whom I will be forever grateful.

Thanks would be directed in the first place to Mr. Filali Billel, who, with his wisdom, consent, support and most importantly, patience, took the largest place and effort.

I would like to thank my whole family and friends for their support and encouragement.

I would like to stop a moment and give special thanks to my mother, because of her wakefulness and her prayers for me, and my husband Yala Mohammed Essalih, because of his help, patience and support, also my best friend Latifa Bentaher, who had always help me in my research works.

Without you I would never been able to reach this point.

V

List of Acronyms

DAF: Deserters of the French Army.

NLF: National Liberation Front.

NPA: National‟s People Army.

SNR: National Committee of the General Revolution.

SO: Special Organization.

VI

Table of contents

Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………..i

Dedication……………………………………………………………………………….ii

Acknowledgements...…………………………………...………………………………iii

List of Acronyms………………………………………………………………………..iv

Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………...v

General Introduction…………………………………………………………………...... 1

Chapter One: The Early Years ofthe Republic 1962-1967

I. Introduction……………………………………………….………………………...…4

II. Did The War Really End? ...... 6

III. "Algeria‟s Ben Bella-Boumadien": New Out Le………...……………..…………..11

IV. Conflictual Issues: A Deep Analysis: ………………...……………………………14

V. Ben Bella‟s Administration………………………………...……………………….20

VI. Boumadien on the Scene: a New Perspective……………...………………………27

VII. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………...33

Chapter Two: The Newly Independent America (1778-1928)

I Introduction……………………………………..…………………………………….35

II. The Articles of Confederation Vs. The Constitution…………...…………………...36

III. Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists…………………………………...………………...44

IV. Key Conflictual Issues in the American History…………………...………………48

V. Presidency in the USA………………………………………………………………51

VI. Conclusion…………………………………………………………..……………...56

General Conclusion.……………………………………………………………………58

Work Cited………………………………………………...... 63

VII

General Introduction

The Post Independent era is a very important period in any nation‟s history since it could determine and decide its future. Generally, this period is always characterized by instability, conflicts and disagreements between the political or military leaders of the nations. In fact, the problems differ from one nation to another, and the way the leaders act towards those problems also differ.

Algeria and the United States are two of the best examples of republics which suffered a lot from the negative effects of colonialism. After granting independence and getting their freedoms, the leaders of both nations lunched another kind of conflicts with each other over different issues.

This topic is considered one of the issues that contain different controversial views, from one historian to another. The researcher tries through this dissertation to clarify the visions for some facts and events that characterized the two republics, during the post independent era. This dissertation is an analysis not only of the periods following independence in both countries but also of political leaders, and the different imagination and views of orientations that they disagreed about.

This dissertation aims at investigating the main reasons that led the Algerian revolutionary leaders and the American Founding Fathers to fight again. It seeks to unveil the different causes and events that led to the widening gap between those leaders.

Because of the highly importance and hyper sensitivity of this period in both countries, one should try to bring to light the realities and examine the historical facts with a careful attention since the subject is very significant. Moreover, this dissertation

1 aims to detect the visions of the Algerian revolutionary leaders about their future; what they believed in, and what were their main interests. This dissertation reveals the main political and economic policies that each of the American Founding Fathers believed in and how they wanted to put them into effect.

This dissertation strives to answer different questions, the most important one is: what were the natures and dimensions of the post-independence conflicts in both countries, Algeria and United States? And how the “Founding Fathers” of the nations were struggling over determining the paths and futures in both countries after independence?

Noticeably, the researcher suffered from the lack of data and references related to the particular post-revolutionary conflicts in both countries. Worthy to be mentioned here, data related to the American side outnumbered the one related to Algeria. In order to create a sort of equilibrium between the sources of both countries, the researcher uses a score of primary sources; books that were written by Algerian leaders, eyewitnesses, and prominent politicians, who played a very significant role at that time such as Taher

Zbiri‟s Nisf Kern Mina el Kifah, Chadhli Ben Jdid‟s Memoirs of Chadhli Ben Jdid:

First Section Features of Life 1929-1979, and also Saad Ben el Bachir el Amemra

Houari Boumadien the leader president 1932-1978.

In Algeria, writing about politics or history is considered as hypersensitive issue this is why revolutionary leaders avoided writing about what they have experienced before. More, many Algerian eyewitnesses refused to talk about historical facts, they excused that they forget parts of events, or that their wounds still existing. Whereas those who write, they are generally recording facts from a subjective viewpoint. Almost all the historical books that could be found in Algeria record the revolution and the

2 period that comes after it as the glorious ages of the nation. They rarely spot the light on the conflicts and problems of that time.

A very important point to be cleared up is that the researcher relied on different online sources that deal with the Algerian history. Eyewitness videos represented a fresh data since they deal with core problems and conflicts that happened in that period, also they dealt with the most important players in the Algerian political scene. In America, presidents, vice presidents and even secretaries of states have the habits of recording their autobiographies and diaries, and registered everything has a relation with their policies, like the Federalists and Anti Federalists papers which the researcher have relied on.

The researcher attempts to preserve a neutral stance vis-à-vis different issues, since the materials deal with historical and political issues. The researcher does not assume the responsibility of any misuse and misunderstanding of the data. The researcher used the available sources and references according to their relevance and merely to serve the subject of the dissertation.

This dissertation is divided into two main chapters. The first chapter tackles pre- independent Algeria, the conflicts to be faced by the revolutionary leaders who led the country after independence; also it tackles the main decisions taken by those leaders to solve the problems. This chapter highlights the policies of two of the main presidents who led Algeria after independence, namely Ben Bella and Boumadien: how they faced each other and other political and military leaders in order to win and preserve their presidency. This chapter uses the testimonies of two revolutionary leaders as primary sources; those leaders are considered as eyewitnesses of that period and great contributors to it; Taher Zbiri and Chadhli Ben Jdid.

3

The second chapter spots the lights on the United States history and politics after independence. In this chapter I will analyze the main issues that the Founding Fathers disputed over, it explores the natures of the conflicts there. This chapter proves that the conflicts among the American Founding Fathers were about the structure that their government should adopt. More, it shows that the Founding Fathers were divided into two major political factions namely the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. This chapter tackles the ideas and policies and philosophies that were supported during the presidency of three major American presidents starting by George Washington, Thomas

Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson.

Methodologically, the researcher follows the appropriate and required approaches for the analysis of this topic: firstly the researcher uses the historical and descriptive approaches to raise the data needed to discover and scrutinize the political and economic events, arrange and classify them chronologically. In addition to that, the researcher go ahead with the comparative approach, which was used to understand the main differences and similarities between both conflicts and their natures, and how the

Algerian revolutionary leaders and American Founding Fathers reacted in order to solve these problems. One can say that the dynamic and complexity of events require reasonable analysis as well as comparative induction of the data.

4

Chapter one:

The Early Years of the Republic (1962-1967)

I. INTRODUCTION

The Algerian independence was a turning point not just in the Algerian history but for other Arab countries as well as, which were under colonization. This independence represented new hope outlets and a raw material which pushed them to ask for their rights and get their freedoms. The Algerian independence was a dream that was realized after years of being oppressed by the French colonization that last more than a century, they paid everything to reach this success, their lives, their money their lands, everything they had, even the air they breathed, they lost more than one million and a half person, which because Algeria now is called the country of 1.5 million martyrs.

In order to get their freedom, the Algerians fought the French who were better equipped, well numbered, and organized. They also fought each other, those who were in the French side, who want to stay and control Algeria forever opposing independence, those who support the idea of “”, well known in the

Algerian history for their terrorist acts. The Algerian fighters used guerrilla wars, since it was the only successful way to fight the huge French armies (Salan).

During the outbreak of the revolution, the Algerians were very poor, bad organized, in the political and military side, and with no specific leader. Consequently, this chaotic condition affected the and raised lots of questions like who would lead and organize the revolution, and who would have the ability to announce its beginning. These problems of leadership accentuated real obstacle for the success of

5 this war, like for example the conflict of Massali El Hadj with the group of 22, which later on paved the way for the war of independence (Zbiri 7).

In fact the revolutionaries decided to avoid the principle of having one leader and tried to makeit a collective leadership in order not to make it a war which depends on the life or the courage of one person. The revolutionaries aimed at making it war of all Algerians not monopolized by few persons. The best evidence that can be given is what once was stated by one of the Algerian greatest leaders Larbi Ben M‟hidi “throw the revolution to the street, and people will behold it” (Zbiri 8).

The Algerian revolution which began in 1956 suffered a lot before becoming organized under the control of one leader. This principle of collective leadership led to the emergence of another problem; because all revolutionaries wanted to lead the revolution till reaching independence and then becoming presidents. What can be concluded is that, this conflict over the chair of leadership started few years before the independence and lasted after that many years.

II. Did the War Really End:

After announcing the end of the war in March, 19 1962, the conflict over leadership lasted each time it became more seriously. Many leaders wanted to assume to power in order to be the first presidents of the newly-independent Algeria.

Among the competitors over presidency was Houari Boumadien the head of the Liberation Army in the borders with during the revolution (Zbiri 13).

According to many historians, Houari Boumadien, was not “enough qualified” for the leading of the country politically. In fact, other revolutionaries were more qualified like

Belkasem Karim who was The commander of the armed forces valuable Liberation

Army, Boudiaf who was in prison, Abd El Hafid Bousouf who was the Minister of

6

Armament in the Intelligence Revolution, and also Lakhdhar Bentoubal the Interior

Minister in the Interim Government, and other figures who declared the war too earlier if compared with Boumadien (Zbiri 112).

Ahmed Adhimi, a retired colonel and a professor of Political Science, said that

Boumadien was always described by Bousouf as that person with an incredible intelligence. So quiet , very calm, with no sentiment, as his friends always felt, also that he had an unbelievable memory, he was a good listener but never made comments, every one witness that Boumadien always knew what he want (Thaer Yabni Dawla)1.

Paul Balta, a journalist of „le monde‟ during the presidency of Boumadien, recorded that Houari Boumadien or Mohamed Boukharrouba, which was his real name, told him that he was born in August, 23 1932, from an Arab father and a Berber mother, and that he always described himself as the gatherer of the two peoples which Algeria is constructed of (Thaer Yabni Dawla).

Balta went further in recording that when France called Boumadien for military services, he ran away to in order to continue his studies at the Zaytouna

University, which was one of the greatest universities of that time. He turned his direction toward after being rejected ,to El Azhar, where he and other Algerian students with the French nationality continued their studies and got a military training there (Thaer Yabni Dawla).

After that, he turned back to Algeria and he joined the revolution on the borders with Morocco, he quickly became known for his military capacities and especially as a chief. Consequently, he was appointed as a colonel by Bousouf, who acted as the director of intelligence in the Algerian army at that time; then Boumadien became the Chief of Staff in the liberation army (Thaer Yabni Dawla).

1This expression stands for "A Revolutionary builds a Republic".

7

There was a complete mess situation, disarrangements, and confusions, and especially an economic situation very decadent after reaching independence. Malika

Rahal, a researcher in the French National Centre for Research, recorded that during the negotiation of Evian, the Algerians were clearly divided into many parts, each side wanted to define himself as the convenient representative of the Algerians.

Firstly, there were the Algerian negotiators, who had a direct contact with the institutional government in Tunisia, and also there were the leaders of the FLN, who were imprisoned in France, and finally there was the army under the control of

Boumadien (Thaer Yabni Dawla).

Ahmed Adhimi said that Boumadien found that these negotiations of Evian did not bring to the Algerians what they were waiting for, and he was very conservative about it since he saw that it contained lots of restrictive measures from the French side

(Thaer Yabni Dawla).

Saad Ben El Bachir El Amemra in his book Houari Boumadien the Leader

President 1932-1978, divided the Conflictual parts into two sections; firstly there were

Youssef Ben Khedda the head of the Interim Government, having the support of the three historical political leaders or “the three B”2 and also the leaders of some wilayas, from the other side there was Houari Boumadien heading the Chief of Staff and the five national leaders except Boudiaf, and the leaders of the remain wilayas (41).

During these times Boumadien tried to prove his position in the political scene since he had no competitors in the military side. Mohamed Lakhdhar Maakal, who was a teacher of history in the university of and a political activist, witnessed that

2 The three “B” means the three historical and political leaders Boudiaf, Bousouf and Belkasem.

8 few years before the independence, Boumadien tried to make an alliance with Boudiaf, who was in prison at that time, Boumadien offered his help for Boudiaf to help him to be president when Algeria became independent while Boudiaf in return should guarantees that Boumadien will be the second man in the authority; Boudiaf refused justifying that Algeria was not fully independent yet, i.e. not yet to speak about presidency. But the real raison behind this rejection was that he always preferred the political man over the military one (Thaer Yabni Dawla).

Consequently Boumadien was obliged to search for another one and that person was Ben Bella, who accepted his offer (Zbiri 12). Ahmed Mehses, one of the leaders during the revolutionary war, described this alliance as the best event ever happened in

Algeria at that time (Thaer Yabni Dawla).

From the other side the leaders of the military regions, or wilayas, refused the authority of Chief of Staff, which represented the military authority at that time and which was under the control of Houari Boumadien. They were calling for the inside authority, they did not except the control of the army who fought colonialism from the borders. The leaders of the wilayas were calling for the military independence which meant the integration of the legions into their original states (Ben Jdid 182).

Everyone that contributed in the political scene of 1962 was convinced by the need of the unity of the whole nation. Chadhli Ben Jdid, who supported and stand by the

Chief of Staff, recorded that he told Salah Boubendir about the importance of working hand by hand to get rid of the negative effects of the war which just ended; they must look to protect the unity of the nation, the people and the army; he asked him to look toward future and solve the current problems. Boubendir, who was one of the leaders of the second region, agreed with him in some points, but he insisted that he would not

9 over-inch of the state (Ben Jdid 182). His answer would be the best example of the hard condition that Algeria, which her wounds did not heal yet, lived in, and who each one was just look for personnel interest.

A war was declared between the “enemy brothers”, this war is well known in the Algerian history by the 1962 Summer Crises. Few months after the conference of

Tripoli, the leaders of the wilaya (the central of Algiers) and the third wilaya (Kabylian region) entered into a bloody and violent clashes with the leaders of the first, fifth and the sixth wilaya, who supported the Chief of Staff which Boumadien and Ben Bella controlled (Zbiri 16). This crisis was the result of the “Wilayism”, the loyalty toward the states, which appeared in Algeria after reaching independence.

This war, which lasted for about five days, was about pushing Algeria toward a dangerous civil war, but it finally ended by the victory of Chief of Staff. Probably the most important event that led the soldiers of both sides to stop shooting was the people‟s shriek “seven years were enough”, also that the military gear of the Chief of

Staff was wild stronger, and that the soldiers of the fourth region were all from the group of march 19, which means that they were not members of the army during the revolutionary war (Ben Jdid 187).

This war signed many innocent victims, but there should be a solution even by using power. At least there was a kind of concord between the three “B” (Belkasem,

Bousouf and Boudiaf), and Mohaned Oulhadj from one side and the Chief of Staff from the other side (Ben Jdid 187-190).

Chadhli Ben Jdid, who is considered as an important soldier and leader, asked in his book Memoirs about the raisons that may push friends to be enemies and brothers to be foes, what are the goals that deserve to drive them into killing each other.

10

Ben Jdid was truly ashamed when he heard the rabble soldiers laughed loudly and said

“here there are the Algerian heroes killing each other now”, he wished death during these moments during which the Algerian people were proclaiming the life of Algeria, the army and the revolutionary leaders (184).

III. Algeria’s “Ben Bella-Boumadien”: New Outlets.

The first Algerian government was under the control of revolutionary leaders, namely “Boumadien-Ben Bella” government. Ben Bella was the president, while

Boumadien was the second man in authority, heading the army and ministry of defense

Ben Bella is considered as a very important revolutionary leader during the

Algerian war, also the first prime minister. After serving in the Second World War, Ben

Bella enjoyed an underground movement with Massali Lhadj, but this latter did not satisfy his revolutionary desires, consequently he founded the “OS”, which was a secret organization established to fight colonialism. Also, Ben Bella was among the members who established the FLN (Merle).

Taher Zbiri described him in his book Half a Century of Struggle as one of the greatest leaders that Algeria gave birth to; he was so remarkable during the Second

World War, and especially during the casino war, which obliged the French colonel

Charles De Gaulle to give him a badge of honor; also he survived from two assassination attempt, which were made by “the red hand”, which a French organization of terrorism. In another side, he was a great football player, his star brighten in the

Marseille team (126).

In 1952, Ben Bella escaped to Egypt were he got great political and military support from Jamal Abd Ennaser, Ben Bella always considered himself as the second

Arabic leader after Jamal Abd Ennaser; even the Algerian people of that time treated

11 him as a national commander. He was well known for his capacities of escaping, whether from prison or from death, after escaping from prison in 1952, he survived two attempts on his life, the first in Egypt the second (Merle).

The conference of Tripoli marked the non-existence of any political or economic conflicts except the one of constructing one specific political office for the National

Liberation Front which was supposed to get the political authority after independence

(Zbiri 12, 13).But, in other side, many historians believed that it was the source of problems, since the members were about choosing the president among them, not letting the people to decide the appropriate governor for them (Thaer Yabni Dawla). No one believed in or accept the political office and the structures that it asserted.

The alliance of Boumadien and Ben Bella was probably the most powerful side in this conference. Malika Rahal said that Ben Bella tried to impose his orientations which were the , Arabism, and Islam; Boumadien in the other side took no position.

Both leaders tried to strengthen their positions and exclude the other leaders and nominees (Thaer Yabni Dawla).

Boumadien did not care about the way by which to reach the authority, when he met the colonel Taher Zbiri in Ghar Dimaa in the Algerian-Tunisian borders he told him “must work toward power” “il faut viser le pouvoir” (Zbiri 15).

The conference failed, and the leaders were divided into two main groups, the group of Tlemcen or the group of Wajda which include Ben Bella, Boumadien, Taher

Zbiri, Mohamed Chaabani; and the group of Tizzy Wazou which include Mohamed

Boudiaf, Belkasem, and Mohamed Oulhadj (Zbiri 13).

Lakhdhar Bourekaa, an officer of the fourth military region and an oppositionist of Boumadien, witnessed that it was not an intellectual, ideological or political conflict in this sense; it was a conflict that a period demanded between the

12

“enemy brothers”. This conflict was known as “la prise de pouvoir” “the takeover”

(Thaer Yabni Dawla).

John Monery, a French historian specializing in the , said that the conflict ended by the victory of the group of Tlemcen and the resignation of the interim government which was headed by Ben Khedda in Tunisia (Thaer Yabni Dawla).

After one month, the political authority of Algeria became in the hands of Ben

Bella and Boumadien. The first one became the president of the newly-independent

Algeria and the second was army Chief of Staff (Thaer Yabni Dawla).

Boumadien played a great role after independence, and especially during the presidency of Ben Bella. He relied on the power of the army in reconstructing the nation, giving himself the hero position. He also changed the structure of the military regions, which before caused lots of conflicts (Chadhli 190-195).

This government of “Ben Bella-Boumadien” was a government of mutual interests and concessions between the two, in which Boumadien reach his goal

„authority‟, and having the responsibility of five ministries; whereas Ben Bella reach presidency and guaranteed the protection of the army (Chadhli 190).

Ahmed Adhimi said that the first step that Boumadien insisted to do is to organize the army to construct a modern army which contains the “cadre d‟état” “parts of state” (Thaer Yabni Dawla). Boumadien in his military politics depended on soldiers that were in the French army during the revolution, because of whom he was truly criticized by his competitors.

In contrary, Boumadien succeed in convincing his dissentients, since they do not have any prove that those soldiers have cheated their country or that they yearn for the authority. Boumadien believed that those soldiers were more organized, and got hard train under the French rule (Thaer Yabni Dawla). The two Algerian leaders were

13 externally united, because both need each other, but each one had an internal fear from the other (Zbiri 21).

Both worked on pushing away any leader or any person who would threaten their position. Ben Bella needed a military leader to support his political options and to guarantee the control of the army, and Boumadien, in the other side, need this political leader and his popularity to reach his goals of reaching authority.

Both amazing leaders showed the world that they give the national interest the whole priority, but even so, they did not forget or forgive about their personnel interest.

A very important point that should be analyzed, that the “Ben Bella-Boumadien” government refused all types of freedom of expression, even through political faction.

They claimed that the Algerian pre-independent era was full of chaos and it was clearly divided, but in reality we may notice that they were afraid from public support for those parties.

IV. Conflictual Issues: a Deep Analysis.

Even with this unity, the Algerian political scene was not as calm as it appeared; it became more and more complicated. Boudiaf and Karim Belkasem did not digest the current reality, and believed that they had the priority to lead the country, because both believed that they were the spiritual fathers of the revolution.

After announcing Ben Bella as the first Algerian president, Boudiaf and

Belkasem opposed the constituent assembly, and started working on changing the minds of the people by making rallies (Zbiri 24).

Boumadien and Ben Bella were working everything legally and have nothing to be afraid of. Both leaders and the other chiefs of the other regions did not like what

14

Boudiaf and Karim Belkasem were doing as spreading anarchist and disorder among the people and create kind of confusions.

After the last aggregation which was made by Boudiaf in the first region, which was ruled by Taher Zbiri, they arrested him, and when they turned him back to

Algiers and put him under the house arrest under the orders of Ben Bella, who was considered as his friend during his trip of struggle (Zbiri 30).

This was the case of punishment with any oppositionist even if he was from the revolutionaries, or the mujahidin, or even those who brought independence and sacrificed for their country.

The policy of Boumadien of using soldiers that bolted away from the French army caused him lots of problems, and probably the first reluctant was Mohamed

Chaabani, the youngest colonel that the military history of Algeria had ever seen, and the leader of the sixth military region (Thaer Yabni Dawla).

Ahmed Adhimi said that Chaabani was very bold, he was raised and learned with the right principles of the Arabic language, he had a very silver-tongued, he was a student in the Mohamed Ben Badis School, during his beginnings he was a member in the SNR (Thaer Yabni Dawla).

Chaabani refused to take orders from who he called the traitors, those whom he believed should be taken away from the army because they threatened the stability of the country. He believed they should not get sensitive positions in the army especially the supply and engineering gear sector (Zbiri 54).

Many military leaders, who opposed the politics of Boumadien, believed that those soldiers would complete the colonizer plan which is the absorption of the country‟s wealth (Thaer Yabni Dawla).

15

Maybe even Boumadien questioned the sudden coming of those soldiers, especially when it was at the same time that De Gaulle became president. always wanted to know what was happening inside the Algerian army (Ben Jdid

157).But, these soldiers obeyed Boumadien in every order he gave, without questioning or complaining, which suits him and encouraged him on hiring them.

Chaabani started his disobey in Beskra after being appointed as vice president of the chief staff, he refused this position, he wanted to be the president instead of Taher

Zbiri, and also he refused to attend the new post and all the conferences and refused to go to his office in Algiers (Zbiri 38).Ahmed Adhimi recorded that Chaabani started on recruiting the soldiers to his side, and with the Arabic principles (Thaer Yabni Dawla).

Ben Bella tried so many times with Chaabani peacefully to stop his rebellion, since they were in a great accordance in the beginning; Chaabani vote for Ben Bella to be a president during the election of political office members, and Ben Bella nominated him to be the Chief of Staff, but Chaabani refused and insisted on never giving up his principles.

Things became more and more complicated when Chaabani called the president Ben Bella the “political rotten”, since he was not satisfy for the way he ruled, the latter became very angry and make his order to Boumadien that Chaabani should be arrested as quickly as possible(Zbiri 58).

Other historians recorded that Chaabani had never say something like that

(Bimountaha Assaraha)3. Ben Bella ordered to make a military court to judge him for his rebellion, but what Mehdi Cherif, who was a Secretary General, recorded is that this court accused him of other crimes that he never did, like his attempts to divide the

3 This Arabic expression stands for "With the Infinite Honesty"

16

Algerian Sahara and also his endeavor to make a turnover against Ben Bella, and that he tried to sale the Algerian companies of petrol to France…etc. (Bimountaha Assaraha).

History testified that Chaabani did not effuse a couple of bullet; he was a pastiche, not a traitor. Chaabani, as his brother Abd Errahman testified, said “I should not get too hot in order not to waste the rights of the Algerians, and should not get too cold and waste the rights of the martyrs” (Bimountaha Assaraha).

We can see that Chaabani was probably a good man, and the proof was his last wish before his execution “may god forgive me because I have helped that group of people to reach the authority” as Abd Errahman Chaabani testified (Bimountaha Assaraha).

As Chadhli Ben Jdid described it in his book Memoirs, this policy of using those soldiers took a large space and a long time, but it still a dark point until know.

Boumadien was intelligent in using those French army soldiers, and he was acquitted from all critics, he tried to mix between two strategies, the maquis war which was used by Algeria army, and the classical way of organization which was used by the French army; Boumadien was not to give sensible or high responsibilities in the army(152-

153).Probably the case of Mohamed Chaabani represented a real dark point in the government of Boumadien and Ben Bella, since his death is still questioned until nowadays. It was clear that there was a conflict between Chaabani and Boumadien, because of this latter‟s policies, especially in organizing the army, but the real raison behind the death of Chaabani –according to Chadhli- was Ben Bella without questioning, he was the raison behind his hatred toward Boumadien (212).

Boumadien avowed to the journalist Loutfi Khouli “during a whole year, Ben

Bella did his best to make the relationship of Mohamed Chaabani, who was the commander of the third region at that time, with the chief of staff disastrous. Ben Bella pushed him toward this tragic end” (Chadhli 207).

17

Even when they succeeded in stopping his rebellion and imprisoned him, Ben

Bella was behind sentencing him to death, since it was the responsibility of the president to make such a decision. All the members of the military court that judged him asked Ben Bella for forgiveness, and even Chaabani asked them to talk with him, but Ben Bella refused even to negotiate the judgments and ordered them the application of the provision after just one hour, and buried him in an known place (Chadhli 211-

Saad Ben el Bachir el Amemra 60). He believed that he should give an example of rigor and credibility (Thaer Yabni Dawla).

It does not really matters who were the raison behind his death, or what were the real causes behind sentencing him to death, what is important is that he was killed by the hands of his brothers and revolutionary partners just because he wanted them to listen to him.

Another dissentient to the current authority was Housein Eit Ahmed, this man used power but not like Chaabani he made a bloody wars and frontispiece with the army. Eit Ahmed was known for his western orientation and also he was known for his strong personality and high level of education and his struggle in the ranks of National

Movement and the people‟s party, he was also one of the leaders of the Private

Organization (Zbiri 72). Later on he became a political leader who joined the external legation, and was one of the abductees in the airplane of October 22, 1956, and during this time of imprisonment his disagreements with Ben Bella became publically known.

After independence he was appointed as a minister of state in the interim government, but he had always believe that he should be the president of Algeria and that he can compete any of the revolutionaries about this chair (Zbiri 73), although he

18 did not have an ally neither politically nor military, and this is probably what weakened his position.

Housein Eit Ahmed announced his rebellion in the 9th July, 1963 and joined

Mohaned Oulhadj in the Kabylian Mountains; He tried to make the Kabylian region an independent country. He accused Ben Bella that he was ruling the country alone without asking anyone else and that he was a “dictator” (Zbiri 75).

Although Mohaned Oulhadj was an oppositionist but he joined the war with morocco (the sand war) and fought side by side with Boumadien, also did

Chaabani, whereas Housein Eit Ahmed refused to join the war and stayed in the

Kabylian Mountains with few other soldiers, since he was not able to recruit lots of them(Zbiri 75-76).

For this raison Housein Eit Ahmed cannot really be considered as a historical or national leader, because he posed the lives of innocent people to risk; and that he was waiting just for the right moment, in which he could control the nation.

Boumadien was ordered by Ben Bella to stop the rebellion of Eit Ahmed; during these times the latter tried to see Ben Bella in order to solve some of the problems; he was calling for re-election but he failed in doing so. Ben Bella refused all of the requests of Housein Eit Ahmed because as he said that they contradict with his principles. So Housein Eit Ahmed was arrested in October17, 1964, and he was sentenced to death, but the judgment was not applied. “Ben Bella did not harry up in applying the judgment, probably he regretted the murder of Chaabani” (Zbiri 80).

Housein Eit Ahmed succeed in running away from prison and also in escaping his family, with the help of the soldier Mohamed Shouli who was responsible in the prison for protecting el mujahidin who were in prison.

19

Mohamed Shouli escaped to morocco after this operation, and although Boumadien did all of his efforts to catch him, but he failed (Zbiri 83-85).

Eit Ahmed sailed to Switzerland and got the political asylum; he constructed a new party which was later on the first opposite party in Algeria (Thaer Yabni Dawla).

V. Ben Bella’s Administration:

Boumadien and Ben Bella succeeded in reaching their goals; they were in the head of the authority, they control everything now, Algeria became between their hands as they worked for. Ben Bella succeeded in getting rid of his enemies, his competent over the authority, starting with Boudiaf, Bousouf, and Belkasem “the three B”; he executed Chaabani, ended the rebellion of the fourth region, the armed of

Housein Eit Ahmed, and exiled Ferhat Abes (Zbiri 98).

But, leading Algeria and being the first president of the independent nation was not enough for Ben Bella. Although his presidential achievements like strengthening the international position of Algeria, and supporting his principles, Islam, Arabism and , which would improve the miserable situation of Algeria; according to many historians Ben Bella represented a real symbol of aristocracy.

As Chadhli Ben Jdid testified in his book Memoirs, “although the great popularity that he enjoyed inside and outside, and the aura of saint that he had gained which reached the point of worshiping his personality, he did all of his best to get rid of us, to guarantee the ultimate control of the authority stage” (221).

Ben Bella, relying on his popularity, tried to find an ideology that would cover the politics that he went through. He wanted to continue the agreements of the conference of Tripoli, in which lots of leaders do not agree about (Chadhli 203), instead

20 of making his attention toward the problems that people suffered from, he claimed a mock glory for himself, Ben Bella believed that he was a revolutionary hero just like

Abd Ennaser, Nicoma, Castro, Soukarno and Modibo Kayta (Zbiri 99).

Since he was the head of the General secretariat of the National Liberation Front party he symbolized the aristocratic president, he did his best for excluding the military power from the positions of making decisions.

After getting rid of all of the opponents and the military and political coup, Ben

Bella controlled the authority stage alone, but the presence of Boumadien, as from the beginning, always produced an obstacle.

Treating himself as the ultimate leader of Algeria, he started gathering the political function around him, which caused lots of problems even with his allies; he was reducing from their power and ignoring their position. He was the president of

Algeria, interior minister, minister of finance, the secretary general of the party, and the supreme commander-in chief-(Zbiri 99).

When Ben Bella and Boumadien became united, they committed themselves to rule Algeria together after beating their enemies and Stand in the face of circumstances that prevent their term of presidency; but after getting all the goals,

Boumadien was not satisfied, and he started in believing that Ben Bella was about ignoring him and consider him one of the enemies who threaten his throne (Zbiri 100).

Boumadien became distrusted to his president. Ben Bella did not get enough from ignoring him from the political matters, but he started on ignoring him in the military problems (Zbiri 101).

Boumadien produced a real problem for Ben Bella; because the latter realized that he would never be able from getting rid from him [Boumadien], since he controlled

21 the army. More than that Ben Bella was always in need of Boumadien. Ben Bella had always introduced Boumadien as the man who is conspiring against me” (Chadhli 212).

Through the establishment of the militia which was belonging to the army and the intelligence agency by the help of the Egyptian intelligence agency headed by Fathi

Eddib, Ben Bella was aiming to strengthen his position and weaken Boumadien authority (Ben Bachir El Amemra 57-59).

Ben Bella firstly hired Taher Zbiri as the Chief of Staff of the National

Liberation Front Party Body, without asking or even discussing with his Minister of

Defense, who firstly proposed him, and who was in a visit to the , this the responsibility of Boumadien to hire the Chief of Staff of his army (Zbiri 36).

Boumadien was really chocked and angry by this decision, because he proposed

Taher Zbiri for this position, and he would welcome it if he just knew before that; he quickly recognized the hidden endeavors behind this appointment.

Ben Bella was aiming to make Zbiri his eyes in the army, while the intelligent of

Boumadien made him eligible to contain Zbiri into his side and made him his eyes in the intelligence agency, which Ben Bella established and Boumadien opposed (Ben El

Bachir El Amemra58-59).

The second step was that Ben Bella decided the resignation of group of commanders who, he believed they threaten him and that they used pressure on him to get their personnel interests, because they threaten him by their demission if he would not listen to them, the group was consisted of Boumadien, Bouteflika, Keyd Ahmed,

Cherif Belkasem, and Ahmed Medghri. But in fact from the whole group the goal from

Ben Bella‟s threat was Boumadien.

22

Ben Bella asked the help of Zbiri but he refused to enter this silent and hidden war between the two leaders. But inside, and because he was a military man, the loyalty of

Zbiri was to “Boumadien”, and because this later was the raison that Taher Zbiri became a Chief of Staff (Zbiri105).

Boumadien realized that it was the time for reaction, especially with the

Collective growing anger; he suggested the collective resignation, he said “this gentleman wants to wear Algeria a pan by his own, let‟s leave him the country and leave him alone” (Zbiri109).

But, this solution was refused by the opponents group which at that time consisted of Zbiri, Bouteflika, Medghri, Keyd Ahmed, Cherif Belkasem, Said Abide,

Abd Errahman Ben Salem, Mohamed Esaid Yehyawi, and Chabou.

Cherif Belkasem and Keyd Ahmed wanted to remove Ben Bella from the chair of presidency, he once said “we gave him the authority on a golden plate, and he wants us to resign” (Zbiri 109).

The meetings were set in the house of Boumadien, and all of the attendants wanted the ouster of Ben Bella, and each one had a reason. “Boumadien got a definite information that Ben Bella is about to resign all the soldiers who resigned during the first conference of the National Liberation Front, and that he will announce that through the radio, the night of the Afro-Asian conference” (Zbiri 111).

So the whole group agreed that Ben Bella should be taken away from his chair three nights before this conference, which meant June19, 1965 (Zbiri112).

They agreed about everything starting with the way they will arrest him, which was to arrest him from his house “villa Jouli”, also who will lead the operation of arrest, and where he should be taken, the name of the group which was the Revolution

Council, and the steps that will follow this step; but just one point rest mysterious,

23 which was how to return to the legitimacy, because Boumadien refused to give a clear date to it and refused to answer any question about it (Zbiri113).

If this operation would reach success, they would get rid of the aristocrats Ben

Bella, and turn back to the “collective leadership”, because Algeria is no more the property of one person. “In the morning june19, and exactly on one in the morning, I,

Mohamed Yehyawi, said Abide and Abd Errahman Belkasem reached villa Jouli, with about ten heavily armed soldiers, we went up the stairs to the fifth floor, where Ben

Bella lived” (Zbiri 123). As Zbiri recorded, as simple as it is we knocked the door, told him that he is no more the president of Algeria, and took him to Haidra to one of the castles and put him in the house arrest, they were truly afraid from his reaction, but he have done nothing and accepted all what was happening (Zbiri 124-125).

But Ben Bella said that they had broken the door, did not allow him to take anything with him, and took him by force to prison (Chahid Ala El Asr)4.

After just one day from the revolutionary debugging success, Jamal Abd

Ennaser, the president of Egypt and one of the closer friend to Ben Bella, sent a high level delegation, consisted of colonel Abd el hakim Amar and the defense minister, and the famous journalist Mohamed Housein Haikel; Boumadien welcomed them in the ministry of defense with Taher Zbiri, Cherif Belkasem, and Bouteflika.

This action from a great leader like Jamal Abd Ennaser would be the best example to show the great support that Ben Bella enjoyed.

They asked for Ben Bella they were worried about him, and they asked if they can take him with them to Cairo, but Boumadien refused (Zbiri 129).

The current government faced the external pressure; many demonstrations were set in several countries of the Middle East, like Egypt and Jordan, as Zbiri

4 This Arabic Expression stands for "A History Eyewitness"

24 described “we suffered a semi international isolation” (Zbiri 131); even president of , and Titou president of Yugoslavia, who were considered as friends and allies of Ben Bella, asked for his freedom and they denounced the coup. But despite all the denunciations and the political isolation, the new leaders could stand by our principle and we did not turn back.

France, the previous colonizer of Algeria, which was under presidency of

Bonbidou, did not want to interfere or make any reaction because they considered it as an internal affair. The Soviet Union did not care much about the coup, they committed the neutrality, they care just about their relations with Algeria and that it will remain a socialist state (Zbiri 131).

In Algeria reactions were different from what Boumadien and his friends expected. Because of the position of Ben Bella in the Algerian hearts, and the popularity he enjoyed, their absolute fear was from the reaction of the people.

But just few members went down to the street, they were about hundreds, stay there for about a month, but later on they accepted the reality (Thaer Yabni Dawla).

The revolutionary leader, which most of them were outside the country, like

Boudiaf, Khidher, and Eit Ahmed, committed silent watching the scene from afar.

Whereas others like Bousouf showed that wanted some place in the authority

(Zbiri132).

“This day is no more than an extension of the revolution, and a correct of the serious deviation that occurred just after it” Houari Boumadien said in June 30, 1965; and in March 6, 1966 he added that the real explanation of the correction of June 19 is no leader and nor leadership; no message and no messenger; but a harmony between leadership and Qaeda (Ben El Bachir El Amemra 88).

25

While Ben Bella confessed that he had little political experience and little culture in what is related the conducting of the nation‟s affairs (Yahiya 9).Ben Bella in his testimony recorded that he did not expected anything like that, there were no prove that they are planning for getting rid of him, especially because the group who arrested him were his friends (Chahid Ala El Asr).

I have chosen Taher Zbiri to be the Chief of Staff, and I have chosen

Boumadien when he was a student at El Azhar, but they had turned on me, I have made a revolution, I was one of the leaders of the Algerian revolution I have ruled for two and a half year, it is ok because I believe that if it was not Boumadien it could be someone else, like America for example; because I knew that the first telegram that support the coup was from America”, “if I had made a mistake I have paid the price, but if I had not

I forgive them (Chahid Ala El Asr).

Ben Bella stayed in prison for forting years with no judgments, they did not allow anyone to visit him accept his closest family members some said that he started on talking to himself, cameras and microphones were everywhere; even when his mother died they did not allow him to go (Bila Kouyoud)5.

He married in prison with Zahra Salami, one of his oldest opponents, he got his freedom in 1980, during the presidency of Chadhli Ben Jdid, and he migrated to

Switzerland and established the party of national movement for democracy in Algeria

(Chahid Ala El Asr).

He died in April 11, 2012. Ben Bella was a true leader although all of his mistakes that he had done, he cared about his nation. He defended the Arab , the liberation movements, the Arabism, and Islam (Thaer Yabni Dawla).

5This Arabic expression stands for "Chainless"

26

The revolutionary council ruled Algeria after removing Ben Bella from his office, and they insisted to correct his mistakes through reset the members of national liberation army; and to never fall in the same hole of vanity (Zbiri132).

VI. Boumadien on the Scene: New Perspective

Boumadien heading the revolutionary council became the new leader of the nation, he got a vast popularity because of the way he ruled, and especially because of the way he treated the lower class of the people (Thaer Yabni Dawla).

Boumadien take the same trajectory that Ben Bella walked through before; he improved what Ben Bella believed in during his presidency.

Like Ben Bella, Boumadien concerned about Islam, Arabism and Communism.

Boumadien was careful in the application of the Islamic low, and also its adoption with the socialist option. Boumadien memorized the whole book of Koran and considered

Islam the religion of forgiveness, openness and conversation (Chadhli 283).

Also he was concerned about Arabism, he insisted to make the Arabic language the first language of the nation, but in the same time he was open to other languages of the world, and supported his people to learn them (Chadhli 283);

Boumadien was good in both languages the Arabic and the French, but he rarely spoke the French and preferred the Arabic. Boumadien was interested and convinced about communism, he wanted to make Algeria a factory country, and depend on itself to feed its people. Consequently he established the agricultural revolution, which in the same time was opposed by many specialists, probably because they believed that it distained the farmer from his land (you tube). Boumadien also established the economic and cultural revolutions. The industry manufacturers did not make Algeria a manufacturer country (Chadhli 289).

27

More interestingly, the policy of Boumadien was full of mistakes which caused him lots of problems with his allies and friends, like what happened with

Chaabani when he hired the DFA. With passage of time, the position of those soldiers became stronger, and their influence distributed the local soldiers, those who were in the

Algerian army during the whole period of the war (Zbiri 173). “The influence of the fleeing soldiers of the French army worried the military officers of the national liberation army, in fact it worried me more especially when Boumadien tried to marginalized my role as a Chief of Staff, and he consulted the colonel Chabou without reference to me” (Zbiri 174), this was the testimony of Taher Zbiri, the first Chief of

Staff, and the person who led the imprisonment of Ben Bella and became the second man in the authority stage, and who will later on try to do the same with Boumadien.

Taher Zbiri was born about 1929, near Souk Ahras. He participated in the

Algerian revolution, and got different military responsibilities, ha was arrested many times but always succeeded in fleeing away and the last time was with Mustafa Ben

Boulaid (Ameziane).

After independence he was the chief commander of the fifth military region. He helped in the military coup against Ben Bella; he laid the imprisonment operation

Boumadien trusted him a lot, and considered him as a loyal friend, but with time things became complicated, this was because of different opinions, which made their relation witness a growing cool (Zbiri 182).

When Boumadien sat on the throne, he did not get enough with just using the

DAF; in contrary he equated them to the old military officers of the national liberation army in the positions and responsibilities (Zbiri173). The other problem in the relationship between Zbiri and Boumadien was the legitimacy, which means to choose

28 the president whether by elections or by the FLN congress, which Boumadien refused this idea even to be discussed (Zbiri180).

This point made those who made the coup became afraid that Boumadien will root in power; and Zbiri expected that before the operation, this is why he refused to be the minister of defense and preferred to stay at the head of the army (Zbiri181).

Boumadien preferred to move slowly until things became clear before deciding the next step. But the other military leaders were convinced that they moved an aristocrat to put another danger aristocrat, the problem was that Boumadien was controlling the army which gave him all the reins of power (Zbiri 180). Before the revolutionary correction

Boumadien was consulting Zbiri in any step he wanted to make, since he was the second man in the Algerian army, whether in hiring people or making decisions but after that he started on ignoring him and especially in the matters that normally Zbiri is responsible for (Zbiri182).

“The marginalized circle included even the senior military officers like Said

Abide and colonel Ben Salem, and colonel Yehyawi who participated in the revolutionary correction, which made the grumbling circle inside the army and even the government expending and intensifying with the insistence of Boumadien on limiting discernible making decisions on just the group of Tlemcen” (Zbiri 193).

All the officers who had a grudge toward Boumadien were pushing Zbiri to talk to Boumadien or make any reaction because current circumstances did not suit them, but Boumadien did not care much, because he had trust in what he got of populated, “Boumadien always respond silently, more than that he despised such suggestions and he believed that it would create problems for him, so he tried to build the county with his own way” (Zbiri 194-195-196).

29

When Boumadien did not want to listen to Zbiri, this later decided to solve the problems peacefully; so he started with boycotting all the ceremonies and the forums, the national one and the international, until Boumadien would change his policy, and he insisted that all the members of the revolutionary council should be presented in the meetings, which Boumadien refused because he had disagreements with some members; Zbiri thought even in the resignation but he could not do it (Zbiri202-203).

This crisis between the two absolute leaders of the army rested for about a month, Zbiri refused all the reconciliation attempts, which were made by Boumadien, want to solve the problem to his side even if with using power, and he ordered the soldiers to catch him, so Zbiri decided to use power conversely (Zbiri216).

“Despite the arrival of the crises with him to the peak, but I had never in my mind to remove him from leading the country, and I did not see myself able for this job, but I was working to Strip him of several responsibilities like presidency of government and the ministry of defense, and let him be the president” (Zbiri218).

Signs of war were on the horizon, most of the critics of Boumadien choose neutrality because they were afraid from his reaction and they knew his points of power, this is why Zbiri did not count on them much, instead he counted on Cherif Mehdi, colonel Amer Mleh, Iyachi Hwasnia, colonel Maamer Kara, colonel Abd Salem

Mbarkiya, Salah Kamoun, Amer Nuiwa, and captain Mousa Hwasnia, Youssef Khatib, and colonel Lekhder Bourekaa (Zbiri227). Each side gathered his armed forced and his allies and those who had loyalty to him, and this was in December 14, 1967, Zbiri and his forces wanted to enter Blida, were the first confrontation ground and air happened, but the forces were not equal.

Boumadien had huge number of soldiers and he used even the Russian pilots and the trainers who come to Algeria to train the Algerians, he used the plains, guns,

30 and the cars (Zbiri241). Whereas, Chadhli Ben Jdid in his book Memories denied this information, and said that the only mistake that Zbiri made was that he ignored the huge weapon that the army got, and especially the plains(230). In addition to the acquisition of military rations, which made the forces of Zbiri hide in the mountains and stop the war for a while, and despite the small victories, Zbiri could do nothing, especially with the descendants promises that he got minute by minute, and that all the demonstrations that he was planning for did not happened. “And his opponents-which were so many- did not exercise any public or political pressure” (Zbiri 245).

Chadhli Ben Jdid insisted that Zbiri was not aiming just to remove Boumadien from authority, but he wanted reach presidency and he used power to gain what he wanted (Ben Jdid 226). Zbiri replied that Chadhli Ben Jdid was the only raison that prevented him to reach his goal; Chadhli Ben Jdid ordered his forces to stand by the side of the victor and not with the right side, this he ordered colonel Hilayli (Zbiri 235).

Chadhli refused these charges; he was to stop anyone who aimed to use power to destabilize the country, although he confessed that he went to Boumadien and told him that he will stand by his side and that he agreed with him in any taking decision

(Chadhli 228).

Consequently, in the morning of december15, 1967 Zbiri ordered all his forces to spread in the mountains because he realized the impossibility of victory over

Boumadien (Zbiri248). After these confrontations Zbiri and his closest allies were hiding in the Oures and they were hunted, whereas Boumadien imprisoned or isolated all the soldiers who were in the side of Zbiri (Zbiri254).

The conclusion of the whole story as Zbiri recorded “the movement of

December 14, 1967, was not a military coup attempt, because simply we did not seek to

31 overthrow Boumadien from the authority, our principle goal was to pressure him because he did not do his promises which to restore legitimacy” (Zbiri 251).

After four months of this military coup and the escape of Zbiri, his followers tried to end up the plan of their leader but this time through killing Boumadien, but in fact they failed again (Chadhli 234).

Just like the military coup that was led against Ben Bella, no popular manifestation were remarked, and other opponents did not make any popular or political pressure against Boumadien (Zbiri 247).

Chadhli Ben Jdid in who were closer to Boumadien than anyone in his

Memoir committed that after the correction process of 19 June Boumadien have made lots of mistakes that was similar to Ben Bella‟s one (226).

Houari Boumadien regretted all of his mistakes, and he was sorry for some decisions he took during his presidency, and he wanted to correct all of them and make a huge changes, but death did not allowed him for that (Ben Jdid 288). Among the proves that Boumadien really remorse his saying that “if my opinion was a donkey, I would bring him in front of me and beat him until death (Ben Jdid 289). But from another side Ben Jdid witnessed that “There is no difference between the Algerians, although their different levels that the years during which Boumadien controlled

Algeria, which lasted 13 years, symbolizes the Algerian golden age”

The military coup of Taher Zbiri was the last in Algeria until now a day, because

Boumadien when correcting the constitution he made the president responsible for the ministry of defense; consequently he closed this door of military coups. But of course problems of leadership and presidency were never ended in Algeria.

32

VII. Conclusion:

As any other nation, Algeria witnessed lots of problems during the independence period, starting by the negative effects of the results of colonialism and then moving to the internal conflicts, which can be considered as more important, in other word, more dangerous.

The revolutionary principle, which were set by the military and political leaders during the war of independence changed. Leaders were calling for the life of

Algeria; they were defending the rights of their people without asking for payment, all of them had just one goal, which was reaching independence, and let their flag fly.

After independence bureaucracy was parked on the necks of the people, all the revolutionary leaders believed that they should choose the right man in the right place, but the problem was that each one believed that he was that man.

Many methods were used to reach this goal. Some of the leaders counted on the popular support, others counted on their military capacities and their control over the army, while others were convinced by their revolutionary history.

What can be concluded from the whole story is that, in the pre-independence era all of the Algerian leaders were looking toward controlling authority, reaching presidency, and having all the reins of power.

More interestingly, the authority of the army over Algeria was an undesirable consequences adventure, its reputation was full of voluntary tendency, and its character was a demagogic and populist speech.There was no difference in the natures of the leaders, nor was repulsion in the mood, there real difference about the important cases that was proposed after the independence and the appropriate way to solve them.

33

Chapter two:

The newly independent America (1778-1928)

I. Introduction:

The 4th July, 1776, is the day of the independence of the thirteen states, which was declared by the second continental congress, after an exceptional revolution.

During this day, Americans proclaimed that “all men are created equal”, with certain unalienable rights namely: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. They did not consider themselves as British citizens anymore. But, probably this was to be called just a political independence, because in between 1775 till 1783, the conflict between

Britain and the American colonies reached its peak. Britain considered these thirteen colonies as a source of wealth, and that it will never commit their independence because they are British lands, and those who proclaim American citizenship are in fact British.

By its beginning it was an internal war, between British colonies which mean inside British Empire, but with the entrance of France, Spain and Netherland, to help

Americans in their war against their motherland, it transformed into an international war. There was a clear lack of equilibrium in the military forces between the sides, the colonies were too weak, bad equipped and not organized, but they did not gave up their lands. The independence of the United States came to be the result of the British blunders and the American efforts in addition to the French assistance (Wallace).

American held so many hopes on their exceptional revolution with their mother county. They wanted to get rid of the British royalty, and to change the system which governed and controlled them, and create new governmental institutions which would shape this new nation. This system would be based on a popular elective system, in

34 other word a republican nation. In this new republican nation people would have to work hard to deserve the title of citizens (Ferhat 35).

During the revolution Americans, headed by the national patriots or the

Founding Fathers, showed a great level of courage and obstinacy, which the whole world commit of. They forced Great Britain to negotiate with them and declared peace.

These negotiations resulted in the treaty of pairs 1783, which at least stopped the conflict over boundaries (it recognized the western boundaries to the Mississippi river, and ceded Florida to Spain), which was the main reason for the back of the British army. After this treaty, America encompassed a vast region, nearly as large as Western

Europe. The western territories contained a few thousands of American pioneers and tens of thousands of Indians, or the original people (Wallace).

The real American independence was established after this treaty, and

Americans lived in peace from this date on. It gained its total separation from Great

Britain, economically, politically and especially geographically.

II. The Articles of Confederation vs. the Constitution:

After the treaty of Paris, the second continental congress, which was consisted of the representatives of the thirteen-independent colonies, decided to set a governmental system, this later would guarantee the continuation of their independence, organize them, and in a way it would unit them. This governmental system was the Articles of

Confederation. John Dickenson was the main author of these Articles, with the contribution of one representative from each colony; this document was to act as a bridge between the initial government and the federal government provided by the US constitution (Articles of Confederation).

35

The first draft of these Articles was named “the confederation of the United

States”. These articles were supposed to empower the national government over each independent state. Also these articles were aimed to organize them, and protect the revolutionary principles. On March 1, 1781 representatives of the thirteen colonies decided to ratify the first draft of these Articles since it contained many disputes namely voting, representation and the western lands (Articles of Confederation).

Unfortunately, Americans quickly recognized that it was impossible to set a central government under the principles of the Articles of Confederation. Probably, this view was the result of many conflicts and disagreements between the states like the

Shay‟s rebellion6, boundary conflicts and unfair trade tariffs within United States and abroad (Farhat 37). The Articles of Confederation produced a powerless government, which missed two important branches the executive and the judicial; it had only the legislature. The government was not able to tax the colonies, nor making any kind of treaties. With the problem of the huge wartime debts, the government could not pay it off; also, it could not raise an organized army (Kelly 3).

The congress also had very limited power, without the approval of the majority of the states it could exercise none of its functions, which caused the ignorance of the states to the congressional laws (Berg 3). Each of the national patriots, or the Founding

Fathers, believed in the creation of a strong federal government, in order to protect the rights of all the states, because they believed in the weakness of the Articles of

Confederation.

Once Alexander Hamilton wrote on congress September 3, 1780, to James

Duane, a New York delegates to congress, “the congress had never any definite powers

6 The Shay‟s rebellion broke out in 1786, to express farmers‟ discount over economic difficulties (Farhat 37).

36 granted them and of course could exercise none, could do nothing more than recommend” (Berg 4).

The Article IX would be the best example of all these words:

The United States in congress assembled shall never engage in a war, nor grant

letters of marquee and reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties nor

alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums

and expense necessary for the defense (sic) and welfare of the United States, or

any of them nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the united states,

nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war… or the

number of land or sea forces to be raised….unless nine states assent to the same:

nor shall a question of any other point, except for adjourning from day to day be

determined, unless by the votes of a majority of the unites states in congress

assembled (Berg 3).

To conclude, the most important problems of the articles of confederation can be listed as: the currency, interstate commerce, and foreign trade, and raising the army, also the inability to enforce the laws.

It is unquestionable that the situation which proceeds any revolution period is characterized by the instability, interior conflict, economic and political situation very decadent. For the Americans, the economic situation was disastrous, but all the states were working and having one goal which is raising and building strong economy.

In the political scene and in contradictory to what was predicted there was no conflicts over authorship or taking presidency, because all the states were facing the same problems which were produced by the Articles of Confederation; and because all the states which were united under those Articles were living a kind of independency and

37 that, the colonies learned to cooperate when they were threatened by external events.

When they have been totally separated from Great Britain, the thirteen colonies wanted to be independent, and to create “separate sovereignties instead of incorporating themselves into one”.

Americans wanted the federal government only to protect their liver, liberties, and properties. They aimed to defend the one against the whole, in case of states‟ disagreement, and to protect the whole in case of foreign wars (Storing 1-2). As a result of these problems and others not mentioned, the idea of change come into birth, all the

Americans headed by the national patriots insisted that the current government should be reconstructed. The national patriot, or the leaders of the revolutionary war, recognized the inadequacies of the Articles of the Confederation as a national government even before the appearance of these problems (Brady V).

The continental congress was the responsible for the gatherings and meetings of the thirteen states. But, the movement for national government began outside the continental congress. Representatives of the states started a kind of small meetings in which they discussed the trade problems. Like what happened with representatives of

Maryland and Virginia, who decided to call the other representatives and discussed

“commercial affairs”. Fifty five delegates presenting twelve states attended the meeting of Annapolis, Maryland in September 1786. Washington, Hamilton and Madison were the notable figures in this meeting; most of the others were from the upper social class

(Brady V).

During the second meeting in the state house at Philadelphia, representatives of all the thirteen states printed the first document. The meetings of the federal convention at Philadelphia lasted for about four months. They discussed all the problems not just

38 the commercial ones (Brady V). The Founding Fathers, who were responsible for the creation of the Articles of and now for revising and correcting its mistakes, tried to avoid falling down with the same mistakes, so they kept a space for amendments and allow it to be changed with time (Kelly 4).

Elbridge Gerry, a delegate from Massachusetts, once wrote to John Jay, a citizen from New York and a Federalist, that he could not sign his name to a document that does not secure the rights of every American; the latter replied that they were accounting for that, and they would have a chance to amend the constitution (to sign or not to sign 7).

Elbridge‟s raisons for not to sign are “there is no adequate provision for a representation of the people; that they have no security for the right of election; that some of the powers of the legislature are ambiguous, and others indefinite and dangerous; that the executive is blended with, and will have an undue influence over, the legislature; that the judicial department will be oppressive; that treaties of the highest importance may be formed by the President, with the advice of two thirds of a quorum of the Senate; and that the system is without the security of a bill of rights (to sign or not to sign 11).

The delegates, when deciding to meet, they wanted just to correct and negotiate about the Articles of Confederation, but in some way they found that they were creating a totally new document. Some of them disagree about this change, others left

Philadelphia, and others refused to sign. The popular scene was very chaotic, some supported the new document and others opposed it. They stared kind of debates and arguments. Writing: essays, letters, newspapers, articles; every one expressed his view by his own way; some celebrated and others protested. Meeting at houses tavern, and even family members discussed and debated the issues.

39

How to divide the power, which form should it take, who should be responsible for it; those were the most proposed questions (Kelly 4).From this point on, conflicts and disagreements come to be realized by the national patriots or whom Americans prefer to call the Founding Fathers, and also between the states.

States firstly disagreed about representation in congress. Large states proposed the Virginia plan, and small states favored the New Jersey plan (Farhat 39).

Firstly, the New Jersey plan, this one was proposed by William Peterson, on June 15,

1787. They wanted to make the state to continue in having its own sovereignty and its independence, while just empowering the Articles of Confederation. In the other side, this plan advocated the presence of a unicameral legislature, and to guarantee the universal equality it called for the equal presentation, which meant one state-one vote, smaller states opposes the Virginia plan because they feared losing substantial power in national government. The less populous states were adamantly opposed to giving most of the control of the national government to the large states (Farhat 39). Under the New

Jersey plan, the organization of the legislature was similar to that of the modern day

United Nations and other like institutions.

While the Virginia plan, which was written by James Madison and presented by

Edmond Randolph on May 29, 1787, was modeled after the writings of Montesquieu.

This plan proposed instead a legislative branch consisted of two chambers (bicameral legislature), in each of which the states would be presented in proportion to their

“Quotas of contributions, or the number of free inhabitant” (Madison).

States with large population, like Virginia, which was the most populous state at that time, would thus have more representatives than smaller states. Also, they proposed three branches in the governmental system but, the legislative should be powerful. The

40 legislature could regulate interstate trade, strike down lows deemed unconstitutional and use armed force to enforce laws (Farhat 39). The Great Compromise, or the Connecticut compromise, aimed at solving problems between New Jersey and Virginia. This compromise was proposed by Benjamin Franklin, it implies that the congress should be consisted of two houses: senate and house of representative. The later would be elected on the basis of population, and the former should be elected on the basis of equal representation.

Also there was The New Hampshire plan which was chosen as a middle-of the road solution between the two plans. This compromise included that the government should have three branches with an elected single executive, a bicameral legislature with an equal states votes at the senate level, and a proportional representation at the level of the house of the representatives, and the judiciary with direct effect on individual citizens.

But, the Black slave here counted only three-fifths of the white men. Notably, the word slave or a black was avoidable during the convention (Farhat 39).

Also, and in contrary to the Articles of Confederation, this plan empowered the congress to tax and regulates all “internal and external” trade. The court system provided by this plan contained a leading Supreme Court at its head to check the constitutionality of the laws; also it implied a system of check and balance between the three states. The last and probably the most important part was the addition of Bill of

Rights (Farhat 39).

Compromises were always the solution for such conflicts and disagreements.

Also, the constitution became effected when the New Hampshire ratified it as the ninth states, completing the required two-thirds majority for constitutionality, and also with choosing George Washington as the first president of the United States (Farhat 39).

41

There existed also another problem, the southern representatives wanted the slaves to be counted to gain more votes, while the northern ones disagreed about this, since the slaves were not treated like the white citizens, they did not have the same rights. The compromise that was established granted that three slaves would be counted as one white man in the representation of congress

These compromises ended the conflicts and disagreements between the independent states. But the problem of slavery lasted even after the convention, during which the delegates refused to use the word “slave” (Brady VI).

Slavery had existed in America before its independence, from the first years of being discovered. It is true that Americans pretended to be against slavery, they could not stop using them. Even the Founding Fathers, opposed the existence of slavery in their modern world, since they committed that “all men are created equal”, they recognized that agricultural plantations depended only on them.

The new constitution did not solve problems like the president‟s cabinet, the process of rotation, and the succession in office (Farhat 43). Their newly ratified constitution suited the whole nation and not just one group or one person. This new document was accompanied with George Washington as the first president of the

United States, conflict between Founding Fathers did not end up in contrary they seized much more on what they believed in.

This new document was of high flexibility that allowed to control and governed the nation for more than two hundred years, and being ratified for no more than seventeen times (Stanfield 1). Probably this history of constitution makes the United

States one of the greatest nations of the world.

42

Each time there was a problem, the representatives do their best to solve it. They worked to protect their union, and the revolutionary principles. They putted their personnel interest a side and cared only about the national interests. They did not give up their principles but their disagreement were not a source for bloody conflicts between them.

III. Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

The Founding Fathers rejected the presence of political factions or parties in their nation, because they knew that this one would separate them. But in fact their political views and theories led to the appearance of those parties. From the George

Washington presidency in 1789 till the presidency of Jackson in 1828, the new nation entered a strong conflict with these new political factions (Farhat 37-38).

Robert Morris, New York governor, in a speech in Philadelphia, he made a prophecy asserting that “in all public bodies, there are political parties. The executive

[the president] will necessarily be more connected with one more that the other. There will be a personnel interest therefore in one of the parties to oppose as well as in the other to support him” (Farhat 43). The political parties become the nightmare of all the

Americans and especially politicians, something they hated but could not get rid of it.

James Madison wrote in his famous paper No.10 of the Federalists paper in

1787, voicing his expectation to the political factionalism: “A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views”

43

He thought that “The causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good” (Madison).

The two factions that firstly appeared, the Federalists and anti-Federalists, most of the Founding Fathers, the national patriots, were divided and believed in one of those parties. The anti-Federalists are those political leaders who were against strong national government; they favored strong local and state government, in which they would guarantee the participation of people in the political dialogue (O‟Connor 158-157).

Also they favored granting power to the legislature because it represent each region, each state, over granting power to the president who represent the whole nation, this is why during convention they wanted to place checks and balances on the power of the national government and particular on the president (O‟Connor 159).They declared war with Britain in order to get rid of royalty system, to be free and equal, even with the one who will control them, they believed that the people should be the sovereigns of any free nation, they wanted to remove the aristocracy. With the establishment of this new Federal Government their ultimate fear was the replacement of the British suzerainty with an American one (O‟Connor 157).

44

The Anti-Federalists often objected to enter into the debate on the constitution because of legal irregularities in the proceedings of Philadelphia convention.

They believed that the convention was set at first to negotiate the problems of the articles of confederation, and not for creating a new whole document which would re- organize them, for them Articles of confederation insisted on the independency of the states (Storing 7).

There has been always a question around the real name of this political party.

They believed that they are the real Federalists, and this name was stolen from them; their Profs are the principles of Federalism in which states are equal, primary and have the same political weight, which are the principles that they defend (Storing 9).

They were also the main apologists of the Bill of Rights, many debates and conventions were set in order to amend the Bill into the constitution, they believed that it would protect each of the colonies, and it will be also the warrantor of the rights of all citizens as equal (O‟Connor 159).

Congress, in this federal government for them, was not like what was supposed to be. It cared only about large navies, armies and expansion abroad, also it cared about

America‟s image in the international stage more than the national one.

Also they stressed the idea that Congress members should stay away from the federal offices in order to guarantee their objectivity, and that they would only care about citizen‟s problems and rights. Other ways, it would exclude people from participating in the federal government (O‟Connor 161).

45

Whereas the Federalists, they believed in a strong national government that would have power over states, this later would protect the whole and the one, according to them there was no need for the bill of rights.

Probably the name of Federalists inculcated in Americans minds firstly in New York, in eastern states, before the federal convention of Philadelphia. They were calling for uniting the colonies and not establishing local or individual ones. But things have changed; supporters of the new federal government took this name, while opposes became the Anti-Federalists (Storing 10).

Referring to the opinion of the Federalists, Jefferson argued, “Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, and then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question” (Barlowe 8).

The Federalists tended to be more educated, wealthier, land owners, lawyers. John

Adams, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Jay and

Alexander Hamilton were important Federalists faces.

IV. Key Conflictual Issues in the American History:

The conflicts over the form that government should take, and whom should be the holders of the power, and especially the powers that constitution did not explicit, reached its peak between 1787-1820; and because of these questions the nation become apparently divided (Farhat 44).

Two of the respective spokes men, and the most notable during this conflict are

Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Even further the two factions were named after them, the Federalists group or Hamiltonian group and the anti-Federalists party or

46

Jeffersonian. The ideologies of those two men that shaped the political objectives of their respective parties marked their era, and also remained the most influential and pervasive element of American political scene until nowadays, because they represent a source of inspiration and political guidance (Zontos 4).

Alexander Hamilton was probably the main leader of the Federalists Party, or the organizer who gave birth to its principles. Hamilton convinced his followers to believe in a strong federal government, if they want to build their newly-independent country. He supported the idea of funded national debt and central bank, to guarantee the total control over the federal government. He is well known for his economic and financial ideas, for him politics is much more economy (Zontos 5). Once he said “when money spread out it was only money, when concentrated, it was capital”, he cared only about those who have these money (Zontos 14).

Hamilton believed that the power of the “federal government” should be only in the hands of selected few people, not everyone could govern. It should control the whole nation, should be the strongest among individual states (Zontos 14).

His opponents believed that he want to reestablish a new royalty, especially because of his good relations with Great Britain. He believed that the navy and the army are the only way of protection for the American “internal or external” interest (Zontos

6). Hamilton is the father of American version of and . In a way his ideas opposed the revolutionary principles, and more, they were strongly controversial and assaulted to his country man, this is way he established the oppositionist party (Zontos 14).

Probably the first problems between Jeffersonian and Hamiltonians began during the presidency of George Washington. Thomas Jefferson, who was the secretary of

47 state, disagreed with the government‟s economic program. In particular, Jefferson opposed the orientation of Alexander Hamilton who sought to strengthen the executive office through financial policies, and President George Washington who agreed about everything that Hamilton said blindly, he always criticized his presidency style (Farhat

44). Thomas Jefferson, the anti-Federalists, was the responsible for the creation of the

Republican Party. Jefferson policy consisted of the notion of freedom. It is an ideology that stresses the idea that the federal government should be powerless, to avoid the total control of one institution over many, which in way would be a second , he believed that any government tend to became authoritarian. So Jefferson supported the idea of a free individual, and common men (Zontos 5).

For Jefferson economy was based on agriculture, since America is much more a rural society, he did not like big cities, which mostly depend on manufacturing.

He was against the idea of expanding abroad; he believed that America should never interfere in foreign affairs; probably this is why they accused him of isolationism

(Zontos 5). Jefferson is well known for his support for the common men and individualism, once he said “state a moral case to ploughman or a professor. The former will decide as well, and often better than the latter, because he had not been led astray by artificial rule. (Zontos 15)

Jefferson is remembered for many things: the declaration of independence, the founding of the University of Virginia, and the Virginia status of religious freedom.

And finally the president of United States and the Louisiana purchase (Ellis). His idea of supporting the common men made him the hero of his generation, even his oppositionists support him for that, they believed that no one could understand better

48 than him. But his tendency toward isolationism and his incapability of establishing a unified institutions, made him in face of comments.

The struggle did not end with the death of Hamilton and the total domination of the Republican Party until the era of Jacksonian democracy and the second party system. They were against each other and opposed each other but in some way they completed each other. If there could be any way of reconciliation or combination between the two, there could be an amazed nation (Zontos 6). Thus, the conflict was present in many struggles and conflicts over the coming years. For example, it was presented in the struggle of Jackson himself against the central bank at the United State since he believed that it contained lots of financial panic and much bankruptcy (Zontos

6).

Although they opposed each other philosophically, the practical side was different; they depended on the ideologies of each other‟s. According to Jefferson “we can pay his dept. in 15 years: but we can never get rid of his financial system. It mortifies me to be strengthening principles which I deem radically vicious, but this vice is entitled on us by the first error. In the other parts of our government, I hope we shall be able by degree to introduce sound principles and make them habitual….what is practicable must often control what is pure theory” (Zontos 17).

But, the most remarkable event of the adoption of Hamilton element was the purchase of Louisiana, one of the greatest achievements of Jefferson‟s presidency, which could have never been possible without the foreign loans that the country could receive due to Hamilton‟s solid establishment of the US credit (Zontos 17)

49

V. Presidency in the US:

After announcing George Washington as the first president of the United States and putting the new constitution into effect, political parties and factions took a large space in the political stage through spreading their philosophies and insisting on them.

In fact America became clearly divided between those factions, but there was no sign of military conflict between its leaders, or the Founding Fathers.

The father of his country was born in February 22, 1732 in Virginia, during the revolution he was the general and commander in chief of the colonial armies from 1775 till 1783. George Washington was always aiming at establishing a great nation; union must be its ultimate character; the national governmental system that the state would behold according to him will decide the course of the revolution, whether it deserve to be the blessing event of the nation or the curse that has befallen it (Nevins).

During the Philadelphia convention, George Washington was the president, he made initial calls for the gatherings of all the representatives of the states; he was totally convinced that something should be done, but he hesitated the fact of attending the convention because he felt tired and infirm. “My wish is that the convention may adopt no temporizing expedients, but probe the defects of the constitution to the bottom, and provide a radical cure” (Nevins). Obviously the conflict in America was not about the authority, no one of the Founding Fathers considered himself as the ultimate leader of the nation, in contrary the conflicts were about structure that their nation should follow and about the amount of power should be given to each one (Kelly 2).

But what is more important is that they allowed for negotiations between them, and allowed for these disagreements, and did not oppress each other. And this can be explained through the features of conflicts that happened especially between the

50

Federalists and anti-Federalists and they tried to solve them. When Thomas Jefferson competed with Adams over presidency in 1800 he told him that “this not a personnel contest between you and me. Two systems of principles divided our fellow citizens into two parties (Ferhat 46). Through the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, the American political scene calm down in a way, since all the coming presidents belonged to the same faction, and have the same political principles.

He worked on the application of the principles he believed in, starting from raising down the prerogatives of the president, ignoring the fact that he was reducing his own prerogatives. Thomas Jefferson tried to make the executive office the symbol of all the people not of the nation (Farhat 47). The presidential election that Jefferson made in

1800 was called a revolution because of the huge change he brought. Through the reform that Jefferson made he wanted the government to be strong and independent but through democratic sources (Jeremy 2). John Marshall wrote to Alexander Hamilton the

1st January, 1801, “Mr. Jefferson appears to me to be a man who will embody himself with the House of Representatives. By weakening the office of the president he will increase his own personnel power” (Jeremy 1).

But Jefferson did not care; he just wanted to prevent the executive from what he believed to be the Hamiltonian monarchical plan. Because he believed Washington followed the aristocratic orientation of Alexander Hamilton, both aimed to make the

United States a royal nation (Farhat 47). By reducing the powers of the executive

Jefferson was not aiming to make it a feeble or weak government, instead he believed that a democratic nation required a strong chief executive, and to reach that the executive must be much popular (Jeremy 2, 6).

51

Thomas Jefferson, the president, wanted to make equilibrium between branches of the government; he tried to strengthen the legislature‟s role in making laws and decisions, while reducing the power of the executive; he was very criticized by Chief

Justice John Marshal: “he [Jefferson] would diminish his responsibility, sap the fundamental principles of the government; and became the leader of that party which is about to constitute the majority of the legislature (Farhat 46).

The understanding of Thomas Jefferson of the value of the executive and legislature branches was different. He believed that the president the will of the nation more than the members of the congress, and he may act sometimes against the law or outside it, if an event require that, but he should be prepared for the judgments of the people; for him the executive should provide “declaration of principles” so that people may be able to judge their president (Jeremy 9, 10).

Although his historical disagreement with Alexander Hamilton, Jefferson agreed with him in some ingredient of the executive power like that it should be unified, energized

(although they disagreed about the meaning of energy) , it should have a fixed salary

(Jeremy 9).

History of Thomas Jefferson cannot be completed without a deep analysis of the

Louisiana Purchase that he made, and which have a vast part in the American history. In addition to the vast region that America enjoy because of this agreement, the danger of the Europeans was chased out the nation, they can be no more the neighbors of the

American, or the occupiers of their land (Jeremy 4). After Thomas Jefferson, the presidency witnesses a situation of agreements between its competitors, since they all belonged to the same political party, the Federalists. But when Andrew Jackson won

52 presidency in 1828 he tried to continue and walk on the same route of Thomas

Jefferson, and also to revive his principles.

Andrew Jackson was afraid from the power that could be given to the president, which –in his point of view- would result in the priority of one social class over another.

He once said: “it is not in a splendid government supported by powerful monopolies and aristocratic establishments that they [Americans] will find happiness or their liberties protection, but in a plain system, void of pomp, protecting all and providing favor to none,…dispensing its blessings…unseen and unfelt (Farhat 47).

A very important point that should be cleared up, that the Founding Fathers, who were presidents from President Washington in 1789 to John Quincy Adams in 1824, precede an inheriting system in selecting each other: i.e. they select those candidates who belonging to the revolutionary family of 1776 (Farhat 51).

Those leaders were both poor and wealthy, self-made, lawyers, planters, merchants, physicians, farmers, scholars and ministers (Stanfield 2).

With coming of President Andrew Jackson things changed, conflicts and change scenes come to be appeared again. The Jacksonian democracy meant to raise the importance of the common men. As any political leader he got principles, and he wanted to spread them.

Andrew Jackson was calling for equal social classes, he was –like Jefferson_ an egalitarian, calling for the rights of the agrarian society. From Jackson‟s presidency and on, the individual voters played an important role in the politics of their nation. Starting from choosing the right man, and participating in the decisions he would make, through judging, and this would be achieved through the parties they belonged to.

53

Starting from his reign, the selection operation of president changed, until President

John Quincy Adams who reign in 1828, presidents were chosen genetically, all belonged to the revolutionary generations (Farhat 51).

After the presidency of Andrew Jackson, the presidential elector became in the hands of common people, because they were chosen by popular votes. The common men became politically active, and competing for votes became very important. The importance of political parties increased, because it took money, people and an organized effort to run competitions (Farhat 51).

All of these astonishing establishments the Jacksonism policy was not vacuous of mistakes, probably he faced the most dangerous indictment, imperialism; since lots of historians called him the king Jackson. He was a strict disciplinarian and a firm believer of his policies, he never hesitate to oblige the congress to obey his decisions.

For example, Because of his credence that the national bank should be omitted, because

–according to him- it impose great financial frightfulness to the state and much bankruptcy to the business, Andrew Jackson stopped the bank from carrying out its functions (Farhat 72).

From the beginning of his presidential campaign Jackson was promising that he would create stability and equilibrium between social classes, but the industrialization of the north and the agriculture of the south make his job difficult, the government played in the favor of the moneyed group of the nation more than the social strata

(Farhat 53).

54

I. Conclusion

As any other national leaders, the Founding Fathers have disagreements, but whenever decisions were made they uphold the law and participate in the process of governing the nation each one from hip position. From the political system they opposed they try to change and fix the mistakes they disagreed about.

Presidents of the United States represent the most powerful elected officials in the world, this because of the huge history of the pre-independent presidents and the achievements they made, and most importantly because of the status that America enjoy now a days.

The Founding Fathers when thinking of the presidency, they sow just the previous experience with their mother country, how they were domineering, and that they did not enjoy all the rights although all of their duties. They believed in the strong executive office in building their nation, and that will lead to the embracement of the declaration of independence of 1776 principles.

55

General Conclusion

Undeniably, the post-revolutionary period is always characterized by conflicts, disagreements, and disorder, in any nation. As previously mentioned, this research aimed at analyzing a fateful and sensitive periods, which determined the present future of both nations. The researcher found that the negative effects and results of colonialism in both countries contributed in the emergence of internal conflicts between the

Revolutionary Leaders in Algeria and the Founding Fathers in America.

On one side, the French policy of “Divide and Conquer” led to the split of

Algeria into military regions, or states, each with its own governor and specific leader.

This apportion lasted even after independence and was the reason of cramps and conflicts and cooling in the relationship between the leaders since each region called for military independence and for its natural rights of governing its people. This problem resulted in the military confrontations between the leaders of those wilayas and the

Algerian national army.

On the other side, the main reasons of the American Revolution were economic and social in the first place. This is why the first issue that the Founding Fathers thought about and led to their disagreements after reaching independence was to create a democratic republic that would guarantee the stability and equality between all social classes. A system that led to the emergence of America as one of the greatest and strongest nations in the world. views were contrastive; each one of the Founding Fathers was convinced about specific theories according to his philosophies, convictions and orientations.

The researcher realized that those internal conflicts and disagreements in both countries were of different natures. The Algerian “Founding Fathers” conflicted over

56 choosing the right man to govern them, while the American Founding Fathers had different imaginations about the economic and political structure that their government should behold.

The Algerian Revolutionary Leaders were convinced that they should choose a convenient person who would continue leading of the nation depending on particular revolutionary principles, but the problem was that each one was assured that he was that appropriate man. After becoming president, Ben Bella saw himself as the convenient person; he was so much impressed by historical leaders like Jamal Abd Ennaser. This influence was obvious in his character and presidential style; he imitated them and wanted to establish the same historical status. The disaster was that, his ambitions led him to , and finally to be accused of dictatorship.

The researcher realized that lots of opponents appeared; they wanted him [Ben

Bella] to be re-routed and also to show him the correct way to lead the country; they wanted him to go back to the revolutionary principles which all of them agreed about before; principle of that the nation is in the first place. As a consequence of his ignorance and his commitment to his opinion, they chose rebellions to impose their logic.

Some of The American Founding Fathers wanted to create a government that would be as different as possible from the previous colonizer‟s system of governing, also to establish a system that would protect them internally and externally in case of confrontations; while others wanted the retention of some British principles of governing especially the passing of power between them. The most important point that all of them agreed about was that this system should unite them.

57

The researcher come to the conclusion that by forming the articles of confederation, the Founding Fathers found that this document does not really suit their ambitions; they recognized that it weakened them instead of giving them the required power. Instead of uniting them and giving them the inspiration to protect each other, those articles of confederation separate them, and led them to be independent sovereignties. No one of them ignore the fact of correcting those articles which they create by their hands, and in a way replacing them; how to do that and how to divide powers and which side should govern and be responsible for the whole nation.

The researcher found that the confrontations between the Algerian

Revolutionary Leaders and American Founding Fathers have totally different dimensions and further results. The Algerians used different methods to reach their goals, and convince the world about their right of governing, whether peacefully or through violent ways. While Americans aimed at convincing each other about their theories and their view points, and they never gave up what they believed in.

Mohamed Boudiaf and Karim Belkasem were the most prominent political and

Revolutionary Leaders to follow peaceful ways to convince people about the mistakes that had been committed and the need to take the step of correcting them. While others like Mohammed Chaabani and Housein Eit Ahmed, who had a very honorable revolutionary history, used violent ways; they fought the army and made their people face the risk of entering into a civil war. All of these conflicts happened during the presidency of Ben Bella who did not allow for any kind of opposition or controversy, no matter what was the method to be used; he did all his best to stop rebellions and punished the agitators harshly.

58

The American Founding Fathers set kinds of meetings and conventions to negotiate the proposed problems and reach a solution that would suit the nation. Each one of them represented his own state proposed solutions in kind of plans according to what they believed, writings, speeches and letters to their people were made to convince them, because they believed that people represent the hard currency of the country.

And even when they come out to a solution, opposition was a must but the way they expressed their opposition was different from the Algerian side. Some of them refused to sign the final draft of the document, which was the constitution of the United States, others left the conventions believing that it would lead to ambiguity; the most important step was their forming of political factions that would guarantee their rights of freedom of expression.

The researcher found that when Algerians tried to fix the mistakes that they have make, they fall into others drillings and pitfalls of non-awareness. Boumadien when trying to solve problems of Ben Bella and put an end to his aristocratic policies he just repeated them. His lack of legitimacy historical films during the revolution and also his lack of heroic role during this glorious war powered his desire to make his people remember him as the astonishing leader who would improve the hard conditions of the country and remove it from its ordeal. All of this led him to fall into adoring the and ignoring all of his closest partners and assistances. His ambitions also led him to fall into the autocrats and the perpetration of severe mistakes.

The researcher realized that the disagreements that appeared between the

American Founding Fathers led to their division into political factions. Those political factions led to the division of the whole state into two main political parties, which were the federalists and anti-federalists.

59

One can summarize that the anti-federalists were much more concerned with the population. They wanted that the government to rule them should only be interested in the internal problems of the states, and never interfere in other nation‟s policies, and to create an executive office as strong as it can be able to protect them. While the federalists believed in the creation of a nation that would lead the whole world, they had believed in policies that would strengthen their country politically and economically militarily.

The researcher found that in spite of the disagreements between the “Algerian

Founding Fathers” they were holding a kind of impressions toward each other; when

Taher Zbiri wanted to correct the mistakes of Boumadien he choose the same steps that

Boumadien took before with Ben Bella i.e. the military coup, but this case was the bloodiest and the most ferocity one. But the strength of Boumadien‟s character and the toughness of his decisions made it impossible to get rid of him.

The first three presidents of the independent United States were much more attached to the British governmental system, the royal one, since they passed presidency to each other; the legacy of the revolutionary family, but others have opposed this system and wanted to prove that they did not make the revolution and lost what they had lost for nothing, that everything gone in vein; they wanted to prove that they first of all struggled the royal system for it does not guarantee the justice between social classes.

Thomas Jefferson and the presidents that followed him did not care much about the power and authority to be given to the because of presidency, in contrary they aimed at eliminating of the power of this office in order to prevent the coming of any president that would rooted in authority.

60

The researcher realized that, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were the most honorable Founding Fathers, starting from their revolutionary struggle moving to their pre-independence policies. Both of them were much more concerned about the future of their nations and the improvements of their people conditions of life.

61

Work Cited

Book

Bailey, Jeremy. D. Thomas Jefferson and Executive Power. New York: Cambridge UP,

2007. Print.

Ben Jdid, Chadhli. Memoirs of Chadhli Ben Jdid: First Section Features of Life 1929-

1979. Algeria: Dar Kasbah for Publishing, 2011. Print.

Brady, A. Robert. The Constitution of the United States of America as Amended:

Unratified Amendments, Analytical Index. Washington: Government Printing Office.

2007. Print.

El Amemra, Saad Ben el Bachir. Houari Boumadien Arraes el Kaed 1932-1978. Blida:

Kasr el Kitab. 1997. Print.

Farhat, Ferhat. From English Colonies to American Republic of the Nation 1763-1861.

Algeria: Office des Publication Universitaire, 2008. Print.

Stanfield, Jack. America’s Founding Fathers: Who Are They? Thumbnail Sketches of

164 Patriots. USA: Universal Publisher.2011. Print.

Storing, Herbert. J. What the Anti-Federalists Were for. Chicago and London: Chicago

UP, 1981. Print.

Zbiri, Taher. Nisf Kern Mina El Kifah: Moudhakirat Kaed Arkan Jazairi. Algeria:

Echourouk for Media and Publishing, 2011. Print.

Articles

Madison, James. "The Virginia Plan". CICERO. Web. 30 Mar. 2015.

62

Madison, James. "the Federalist Paper No.10: the Utility of the Union as a Safeguard

Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection." Publius. 22 Nov. 1787. Web. Dec 22.

2014.

Ameziane, Alhali. “le Livre Mémoire de Taher Zbiri Victime de Son Succès a Provoque un Mouvement de Foule” Algeria 1. 28 Sep. 2011. Web. Jan 1. 2015

Encyclopedias and dictionaries

"Articles of Confederation". Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica

Inc., Web. 2015. 20 Feb. 2015.

Ellis, Joseph. J. "Thomas Jefferson". Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia

Britannica Inc., 2015. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.

Nevins, Allan. "George Washington". Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia

Britannica Inc., 2015. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.

Merle, Robert. “: President of Algeria.” Encyclopedia Britannica

Online. Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2015.web. Jan 22, 2015.

Salan, Raoul. “Algerian War” Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia

Britannica Inc., 2015. Web. Jan 23, 2015.

Wallace, Willard. M." American Revolution: United States History". Encyclopedia

Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2015. Web. 14 Feb. 2015.

Online Sources

63

Berg, Sean. "The Founding Fathers and the Constitutional Struggle Over Centralized

Power". Lakeland Elementary / middle school: Baltimore City Public School System.

Web. 22 Feb. 2015.

O‟Connor, John F.O. “the Emolument Clause: an Anti-Federalist Intruder in a

Federalist Constitution. Hofstra Law Review (1995). Web. 21 Jan. 2015.

"to Sign or Not to Sign: the Ultimate Constitution Day Lesson Plan". Education and

Exhibits Staff, National Constitution Center. Web. 30 Jan. 2015.

Yahiya, Abu Zakaria. Algeria Min Ben Bella ILA Bouteflika. Nashiri, 2003. Web. 29

Jan. 2015.

Research Essays

Barlow, Benjamin. J. “Federalist vs. Republicans: the Nature of Man in a Republic

1787-1800”. Senior Thesis. Liberty University. Spring 2011. Print.

Zontos, Michail. “Jeffersonian Republicanism Hamiltonian Federalism in the

Progressive Era: Herbert Croly and the Struggle for Ideology.” M A Thesis. Utrecht

University. 2010-2011. Print.

YouTube Videos

“Bila Kouyoud.” Youtube. Youtube, 22 Jan, 2015.web.25 Mar.2015.

“Bimountaha Assaraha” you tube. Youtube, 22 Jan.2015. web. 10 Mar.2015.

“Chahid Ala el Asr.” Youtube. Youtube, 22 Apr, 2015. Web. 15 Mar. 2015.

“Thaer Yabni Dawla.” Youtube. Youtube, 1 Nov, 2014. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.

64