The Algerian Revolution - Overthrowing the Government, but Controlling Only a Part

            The Algerian revolution was in many ways a perfect example of a revolution. However, the revolution does highlight the weaknesses inherent in the definition of a revolution given by David A. Samuels. Samuels defines a revolution as “armed conflict within a sovereign state between insurgents and the state,” and gives three criteria that distinguish revolutions in particular: both the insurgents and state claim the allegiance of the majority of the people; authority over the state is forcibly taken by the insurgents from the state; and the wholesale change that the insurgents bring about after taking control of the country or territory (2013). The Algerian Revolution, while it qualified as a revolution in these three ways, could also be classified as something else because of the unique nature of the war and the weakness of Samuel’s definition.

            The revolution in Algeria fulfills all three qualifications above. For years Algeria had been considered as part of France. It was divided into three départements of France (the equivalent of a county in the United States), and encouragement from the French government during the first half of the twentieth century encouraged the settlement of hundreds of native French families in Algeria (Shepard 2006). However, Algerian nationalism grew quickly in the years following World War Two, and the Algerian revolution began with a revolt by the Front de Libération Nationale (the National Liberation Front, or FLN) in 1954. Fighting, including guerrilla warfare and torture, last for several years until President de Gaulle of France ended the war and gave Algeria its independence. As a result of the war, the Fourth Republic of France was overthrown by the French, and a new constitution was written (McCormack 2007).

            The war in Algeria fulfills the three criteria of a revolution. Both the French government and the Algerian rebels claimed authority and support from the population, which after several decades was somewhat mixed ethnically and culturally. After years of fighting, the control of the country was taken by the insurgents, who instated wholesale change in the form of an Islamic government (Shepard 2006).

            Despite this, there may be some who object to the classification of a revolution on the grounds that the Algerian freedom fighters did not overthrow the entire country, but simply the Algerian territory. However, it should be noted that the actions of the Algerians resulted in the collapse of the French state, which I believe classifies it as a revolution. The weakness of the definition is obvious because it does not allow for instances like Algeria when a revolution overthrows an entire country but where insurgents only control part of the country.

For these reasons, in relation to the Algerian revolution, the definition of revolution might profit from being slightly altered to include independence movements which result in the widespread collapse of a government, even if the insurgents do not control the entire former country.  

In conclusion, the definition that David J. Samuels gives for a revolution fits the Algerian war fairly well. While it does have a few weaknesses, the definition adequately fits the Algerian revolution.

           

REFERENCES

McCormack, Jo. 2007. Collective memory: France and the Algerian War. Lanham, Maryland:       Lexington Books.

Samuels, David J. 2013. Comparative Politics. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Pearson Education.

Shepard, Todd. 2006. The invention of decolonization: The Algerian War and the remaking of        France. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.