On January 30-31, 2008, Algeria hosted an international colloquium on "Problems of the transition period in Algeria and in Russia", organized by the Algerian Association for the Development of Social Research (AARSI). In addition to Algerian scientists, the colloquium was attended by Professor M. A. Rodionov of St. Petersburg University, Head of the Department of Economics of RUDN University N. P. Karpus, Head of the Department of Teaching Methods of RUDN University V. M. Shaklein, Associate Professor of RUDN University K. P. Kurylev, as well as researchers of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences D. V. Mikulsky and R. G. Landa.

AARSI is one of the public organizations that emerged in Algeria after the "political spring" of 1989, when the one-party regime was abolished in the country and a new democratic constitution was introduced, which provided for the separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers, government accountability to Parliament, freedom of the press, political and other associations. AARSI has been in existence since 1992 and today unites about 50 researchers and university lecturers. Its activities became more active only in 1999, when living conditions in the country were more or less normalized and the "second Algerian war" (the so-called period of fierce struggle against Islamist extremists in 1992 - 2002, in contrast to the first, the national liberation war of 1954-1962) was already coming to an end. Over the years since then, AARSI has organized a series of meetings and seminars for teachers of sociology, economics and history from all universities in Algeria, dedicated to studying various topical issues of the country (women's issues, social inequality, the status of scientists, the state of statistics, school and university education, health care, the latest developments). technologies). Surveys of the population, international symposia on the quality of modern education, industrial development strategies in the southern Mediterranean, and the prospects of the nation-state in the era of globalization were also conducted.

The colloquium with the participation of Russian scientists in Algeria received a lot of attention from the local mass media. The independent newspaper El Watan noted that the goal of its organizers will be "to identify similarities between the political and economic systems of the two countries and compare their experience." By the way, in the official invitation of the President of AARSI, the topic of the meeting was formulated as follows: "Algeria-Russia: problems of the transition period, experience and lessons". Although "experience and lessons" later disappeared from the forum's name, in fact, they were always in the center of attention of the meeting participants and it was around them that discussions were held.

In the opinion of the Algerians, repeatedly expressed on radio, television, and in the press in Arabic and French, as well as in the theses of the ARSI, published in advance as a kind of platform for discussion, the common feature of the transition period in the history of the two countries (chronologically related to the beginning of "perestroika" in the Soviet Union) was the need to get "out ofone-party system and monopolism in the field of information, centralized economic planning, the dominance of the role of the state and ... difficulties in managing the entire political system."

page 140
The authors of the theses also drew attention to "the spread of violence and terrorism in various forms in the urban environment and among young people, as well as in some intellectual and political movements in both countries." It should be noted here that Algerians avoid any mention of Islam and Islamism when talking about terror. Islam is associated only with the concepts of peace, light, humanity and tolerance. And extremist terrorism does not have any religious characteristics, being referred to as "violence", "barbaric aggression" and other terms of the same kind.

It was suggested to focus on three main groups of problems. The first dealt with political issues: what should the state become as a result of the transition from one-party to multi-party system and how should the new political elites act in the new environment?; can "peaceful mechanisms of change, in particular elections," cope with this?; what is the role of the army in social change and its relations with other state institutions?; finally how to transform the ideological, constitutional and legal structures of society? The second group of issues concerned the economic and social aspects of the topic discussed, in particular the fate of the public sector, its employees and their trade unions, the nature and results of privatization in both countries, the strengthening of the private sector, as well as economic and any other external influence, i.e. both foreign powers and transnational corporations. In this regard, the question was raised about the social consequences of the economic choice of the 1990s, which gave rise to social inequality and political speeches born of it, often accompanied by various forms of violence.

This list of questions was discussed at a colloquium held at the National Library of Algeria in the Hamma district. In addition to the members of the ARSI, many public figures, former generals, ministers and prime ministers, diplomats, journalists and students took part in its work. The author of these lines also met several historians and economists who had previously studied in the USSR in the 1960s and 1970s and still knew the Russian language.

The first meeting of the forum was addressed by the President of AARSI Mohammed Bengerna, Director General of the National Library Amin Zaoui, as well as the Vice-presidents of AARSI, who were directly involved in organizing the colloquium, Abdennaser Jabi and Huria Lauage. They talked about the significance of the meeting for both sociology and relations between the two countries. Abdelmajid Bouzidi made a presentation on "Transition to a market economy: the Algerian experience". He divided the transition period in Algeria into three stages: 1988-1994. (beginning of reforms), 1994-1997 (attempt to coordinate financial and economic policies in general with the IMF), 1998-2007. (a return from the ultra-liberalism of 1999-2001 to the omnipotence of the state in subsequent years).

The speech of Algeria's most prominent economist Bouzidi set the tone for the entire colloquium. He described in detail the country's ongoing reforms (in finance, credit, public sector enterprise management, housing construction, public debt restructuring, lifting price controls and blocking wages), approved the privatization of state-owned enterprises and hotels, the abolition of subsidies for essential products in 1996, price liberalization in 1998, and the introduction of free trade in the United States. 1999-2001 and the state's refusal at the same time to play the role of "divine patron", especially in the field of social security. However, then there was a "turn from liberalism to statism", "the state again became the distributor of resources, and the liberals became Keynesians". According to Bouzidi, they " present themselves as liberals in the economy, but they are not so in politics." However, he believes that with the rise in oil prices, "the state takes everything in hand." His conclusion was rather pessimistic: "The state, having super-revenues from oil, has never intervened in the economy in such a way, encouraging it in the spirit of Keynesian dynamics with budget subsidies, much more than in the past. more significant than in the socialist era." He added: "It is clear that democracy should be a condition for development, not the other way around. But now in Algeria, the formula is 'We are developing, and the rest will come naturally'."

To the sociologist's remark Rashida Tlemsani: "There is no transition period in Algeria, as it is about maintaining the old rent system," Bouzidi said.: "The transition period means a struggle between the bearers of the old system and the supporters of the new one. We know the old one, but we don't know what the new one is." Another debater (former Prime Minister), Ahmed Bin Bitour, said: "We now have a rich state and a poor society, which is expressed in the following words:-

page 141
it is in a deep political crisis." Some panellists, including a member of the National Economic and Social Council Mustafa Mikidash, they insisted that "the reforms failed due to the lack of concentration of forces in the society of supporters of reforms", in other words, "due to the indifference of society".

A definite contrast to Bouzidi's report was the following statement: N. P. Karpusya, who, noting that "the Russian economy and population have experienced a shock of transformation of the social system over the past two decades," further described in detail the economic reforms of the transition period in the country. The Algerian press reacted to this as follows:" Russia, unlike Algeria, relied on the contribution of elites to development, "while"the Algerian reality was characterized by contradictions that hindered the will to real change."

I have highlighted some of these contradictions Abdennaser Jabi in the report, under the eloquent title " Segmentation of the elite and the state as an obstacle to political change in Algeria." He even spoke of an" internal war " of power structures based on the isolation of elite groups, noting the political, social, ideological, even scientific, cultural and linguistic differences between them, clearly referring not so much to the ethnic gradations between Arabs and Berbers, which are sometimes difficult to detect in Algeria, as to the differences (very serious) between those who were educated in French or Arabic. The diploma of education often determines (of course, along with the origin, standard of living and social connections) the" pro-Western "or" pro-Eastern " orientation of a particular politician, official, cultural figure and, accordingly, his tendency to "new" or "old", to reform or to preserve traditions. According to Jabi, the variety of traits he described often led to discord and division within any organization.

One of the aspects of this problem was raised by Walid Laaggun, Professor of Law at the Algerian Higher School of Management. According to him, the term "transition period" itself is questionable, as it was previously identified with the transition to socialism. Algeria is an example of a synthesis of various influences. It is "Arab, African, Maghreb and Muslim" and "was a socialist one-party state that exercised universal control." And now, he believes, the omnipotence of the state is returning, because without it "it is impossible to control the receipt and distribution of oil rents." Since the summer of 1963, in his opinion, there has been no political or constitutional agreement in Algeria. He stressed that the "rent system" develops instruments of power, but not representative institutions, and that the current constitution in Algeria, the sixth in a row, only sanctifies the results of already completed processes, without providing for their changes.

Formally, the topic of each meeting was determined in advance: 1) "Two experiences of transition to a market economy"; 2)" Difficulties of political transition in Algeria and Russia and obstacles to it"; 3)" Problems of the transition period in society, elites and institutions"; 4)"Elements of synthesis in the problems of transition in Russia and Algeria". In fact, the speakers did not adhere to such a strict framework, usually touching on everything that interested them.

Without retelling in detail what was said at the colloquium during the two days of its work, I will try to state the main thing. Mohand Berkouk, a political scientist at the University of Algiers spoke about the political culture and technology of transition to democracy in Algeria, computer science teacher Ahmed Brahimi - on the right to information in a one-party environment and the state of emergency in Algeria that existed at the beginning of the transition period. His report contained interesting figures: Algeria now publishes 60 daily newspapers only (compared to only 9 in neighboring Tunisia). But when discussing the situation of the media in the Maghreb, he acknowledged the increasing control over them "by a society that is gradually becoming civil."

Jamil Gerid, a sociologist from Oran, the second most important city in the country, made an interesting report that set the tone for the entire course of the colloquium on the second day. Briefly describing the period of Algeria in the 1960s and 1970s, he defined its essence as "a guarantee of bread and development, but at the cost of strengthening public security and the state", in which "the question of democratic freedoms concerned an insignificant minority of isolated intellectuals". But the state then " achieved a lot that would have been unthinkable in a market economy." Becoming the "main distributor, owner and entrepreneur", the state

page 142
It already "controlled everything and was not interested in freedom," although the ruling party's program "proclaimed democratic goals."

Guerid's report was titled " The transition to liberalism in Algeria: a unilateral break with agreements." He, like Bouzidi, Laaggoune, and Brahimi, was essentially concerned with the identification of liberalism and Western democracy in a purely political sense, and frankly regretted that hopes for their implementation in Algeria had not been realized. According to him, the state again assumed the functions of "collective intelligence", as if replacing public opinion, and the current president Bouteflika largely returned to the system created by Boumediene (which should not be surprising, because under Boumediene, i.e. in 1965 - 1978, Bouteflika was the No. 2 person in Algeria). Gerid paid much attention to the collective, family and individual dramas and sufferings of Algerians, which, in general, were inevitable in the 1990s (as thirty years earlier during the revolution of 1954-1962), characterized by the spread of armed violence, chaos in the social sphere, sharp shifts in the economic situation, and a moral crisis and morality, which resulted in drug addiction, family breakdown, oblivion of old customs and criminalization of society. However, all related to these phenomena problems, Gerid emphasizes, were solved not in accordance with the law and legal norms, but by the "informal power" of local authorities, usually from the newly promoted top of clans or tribes, as well as by other "non-system methods". Gerid later developed this idea, speaking in the discussion that summed up the results of the colloquium, and pointing out that the weakening of the position of the intelligentsia in any society, especially its oblivion of "theoretical activity", inevitably entails "the revival of traditional forms of consciousness."

The Algerians ' speeches alternated with those of the Russian participants of the colloquium. K. P. Kurylev He spoke about the political evolution of Russia in the 90s of the last century. But he began with the reforms of Alexander II, Witte and Stolypin, describing them as "the beginning of modernization", which continued with the creation of the first Russian parliament, a free press and political parties. In 1917, a "new stage of modernization" began. However, in the future, the need to update all aspects of the system was revealed, which was the goal of the Gorbachev-Yeltsin reforms. To date, the updated system has finally developed and stabilized. But this does not mean that all problems are solved. The system has been changing for too long, sometimes slowly responding to the challenges of the times and experiencing difficulties related to demographics and the super-huge size of the territory. At the end of his speech, K. P. Kurylev had to answer a lot of questions about the differences between the Russian political system and those of the West.

V. M. Shaklein his report was devoted to the reforms of the education system in Russia, the beginning of which he attributed to the "perestroika" initiated by Gorbachev. Drawing parallels with the identical transformations in Algeria at the same time, he stressed that for all the differences between Algerian and Soviet societies, changes in the political, social and cultural spheres of both countries were "a natural result of social evolution." He also touched upon the issues of recognition of Russian diplomas at the international level, freedom of information exchange, scientific relations with foreign academic centers, the participation of the educated elite in reforms, contradictions in its ranks about the attitude to the measures taken by the authorities, etc.

M. A. Rodionov He said that during the transition period in St. Petersburg, many new buildings of modern architecture were built using the latest construction methods. At the same time, speaking about the competition in this area between Moscow and St. Petersburg, the speaker likened it to the same rivalry between the capital of Algeria and the second city of the country - Oran, including in the issue of the formation of political elites in Russia (largely made up of natives of St. Petersburg) and Algeria (largely due to natives of Oran and the Oran region)*. He also touched upon a number of other common problems faced by Algeria and Russia during the transition period, in particular those related to oil and gas, which are handled by Russia's Gazprom and Algeria's Sonatrak holding, respectively. Cca-

* Let me remind you that President Bouteflika of Algeria, who was born in Oujda (Morocco), belongs to the ancient family of Tlemcen, an important cultural and historical center of the Orange region.

page 143
bo mentioned the difficulties in solving the issue of interethnic relations, which is quite difficult in multiethnic Russia, but equally difficult in Algeria when it comes to Arabs and Berbers, not to mention Europeans and people of mixed origin.

D. V. Mikulsky In the report "Oriental studies education in Russia during the transition period", he stressed that Oriental studies are one of the treasures of Russian culture, because Russia has always been not only turned to the East, but also to a large extent is a part of it. Scientific Oriental studies originated in Russia in the XVIII century, and officially-with the creation in 1818 of the Asian Museum in St. Petersburg. By the middle of the 19th century, we already had a well-developed Oriental studies and Oriental education based on Russian cadres, whose education was also supported by some Arabs - the Egyptian at-Tantawi, the Syrians G. Murkos, M. Attaya. The main centers of Oriental education were the universities of St. Petersburg and Kazan, the Richelieu Lyceum in Odessa, and later the educational institutions of Baku, Kharkiv, and Tiflis, as well as the Lazarev Institute of Oriental Languages in Moscow. After the revolution of 1917, there was a struggle to preserve the academic foundations of Oriental studies, largely associated with the names of the most prominent Arabists in our country - I. Y. Krachkovsky and A. E. Krymsky. In the 1950s and 1970s. Oriental studies played the role of one of the most advanced areas Soviet science, especially its humanitarian branches. But it would be wrong to deny the connection between the post-perestroika crisis of Oriental studies and the general crisis in Russia and the subjective mistakes of the 1990s. A number of problems, in particular the apparent failure of the two-stage education system for teaching Oriental languages, require urgent solutions. We hope, however, that the current difficulties will be overcome and that Russia will remain a leading power in Oriental studies.

D. V. Mikulsky's speech at the colloquium was organically continued and supplemented by his interview with the newspaper "Aljazair News". In it, as a historian and Islamic scholar who has also worked on political and religious issues in Russia in recent years, he pointed out similar transition processes in both countries. This was "a transition from a socio-political regime of monopoly to a regime of pluralism", which at the same time meant "a transition from an economy based mainly on the public sector to an economy based mainly on the private sector".

In the report of R. G. Landa "Algeria-Russia: Problems of the transition period" it was noted that Russian experts on Algeria already spoke about such general features of the crisis of the 1990s more than 10 years ago. in Algeria and Russia, as the deterioration of the economic situation, falling production, increasing social tensions, discrediting the government, disillusionment with the ideals of socialism and the role of the only party. Naturally, the search for a way out of the crisis also had similarities. And they led to very significant changes, which for the first time in history meant the transition from socialism to capitalism, and not vice versa. At the same time, the modern market economy not only includes private business in its various guises, but also depends largely on the public sector and state policy. Therefore, reforms in both countries could not and should not simply restore capitalism as such. This is what gave rise to talk (both in Russia and Algeria) about the" failure "or" incompleteness " of reforms. In fact, we should talk about their contradictory nature, reflecting real economic and social contradictions, as well as historical traditions of society, for example, the priority of the state and any social collective for the development of social relations. in relation to the individual.
It went on to talk about the variety of possible assessments of "neoliberal shock therapy", a single point of view on which in Russia there can be no single point of view in the context of both scientific and ideological pluralism. However, we should not underestimate the importance of the reforms carried out in Russia and Algeria, which made a real transition to a market economy, freedom of private entrepreneurship and foreign investment, just as one-party system was replaced by multi - party system, state-ideological monopolism-by political pluralism and parliamentarism. New structures of the state and society have been created, including a strong presidential regime. The similarity of such transformations was born both by the similarity of both systems, and equally by the need to modernize them.

page 144
Of course, it is necessary to note not only what is common, but also what is special in the practice of reforms in the two countries. In Algeria, this is primarily the important historical role of the National People's Army in the country's political system, as well as the reorganization and formation of new political, administrative and economic elites. No less important in Algeria is the role of Islam, which is officially recognized as a fundamental component of national identity, as well as "a source of light, peace, freedom and tolerance" (quote from the "Charter of Peace and National Accord", proclaimed by the President of Algeria).

The report then gave a brief overview of the situation of Islam in Russia and briefly outlined the essence of the problem of Chechnya, including the question of the contradictions between Islam-extremists and tariqa (supporters of Sufi brotherhoods), which is practically unknown to Algerians. In conclusion, the participants answered the questions formulated by the heads of the ARSI as a preliminary basis for discussion at the colloquium.: 1) the solution of all the political problems of both countries depends both on the future orientation of their socio-economic development and a reasonable synthesis of national traditions and the necessary modernization, and on the renewal of political personnel capable of successfully implementing the overdue transformations in the very difficult conditions of modern globalization; 2) the necessary strengthening of the public sector and the restriction of the private sector in this regard must have its limits in order to achieve social equilibrium, mitigate the social contradictions that are inevitable under the dominance of market relations, and neutralize internal and external conflicts, taking into account the trends of the world market and the international political and diplomatic situation; 3) the incompleteness of the process of folding in both countries. civil society and civil identity, and the associated need to exercise prudence and not force artificially inevitable transformations in this area, taking into account national, religious and ethno-social traditions, as well as the historically established mores, morals and customs of each nation.

It is worth noting the report of the sociologist of the Metropolitan University of Algeria Abdelaziz Boubakir "The interest of the Russian intellectual elite in Algeria". The speaker, who speaks Russian, was quite attentive to the task before him, having familiarized himself with the works of the authors of pre-revolutionary Russia (M. N. Bogdanovich, M. M. Kovalevsky, A. N. Kuropatkin, M. Kokovtsev, A. Rafalovich, P. Chikhachev, etc.), as well as with the works of our contemporaries - N. N. Chikhachev. Dyakova, G. S. Kondratieva, R. G. Landy, V. I. Maksimenko, Yu. V. Potemkina, N. G. Khmeleva. I later had to remind the speaker about some of the others - S. E. Babkin, B. V. Dolgov, and E. I. Mironov. However, it was clear that Boubakir (as well as other Algerians) was not familiar with our literature on Algeria, published in the 1990s, when bilateral ties were declining.

Algerians-former prime ministers-were particularly active in discussions on the reports Mulud Hamroush and Ahmad Bin Bitour, already mentioned ones Gerid, Jabi and Laaggun, sociologist Omar Larjan, economist Murad Bukella, history teacher Daho Djerbal, writer and journalist Muhammad Bukhamidi. Hamroush, "one of the creators of the transition period, the one who led the first reform government" (according to the El Watan newspaper), insisted that the transition from the old regime to the market economy regime ended in failure, as it was led by those who focused only on economic measures, while applying the following methods: old political methods "in a new package". Therefore, in his view, by the end of the transition period in Algeria, the benefits of a market economy were enjoyed by a minority, while the majority, deprived of political democracy, was socially marginalized. For his part, Ben Bitour, one of Algeria's recognized theorists of economic liberalism, also noted the "failure of politicians" and their "minority government", which failed to make the transition to a market economy due to the lack of democratic principles for managing the economy, politics and social sphere.

However, the range of opinions during the discussions was very significant-from the desire to explain everything by political nationalization of natural resources (D. Djerbal) before the recognition of the transition period in the former socialist countries as a "counter-revolution" and the call for the creation of "socialism of the XXI century" (M. Bukhamidi). It is not without reason that the Aljazair News newspaper (February 2, 2008) reported on one of the discussions as " The Struggle between Socialism and Kapita-

page 145
tourism continues." This topic was also discussed by Fr. Larjan and other speakers. One of them (economist A. Khelif) I saw a common feature in the destinies of our countries in that they are based on the"extractive economy". At the same time, Russia has now become a "powerful oil and gas empire", which largely explains and determines its policy, including foreign policy.

The proceedings of the colloquium will be published. As its participants emphasized, many issues remained unresolved or controversial. And this is quite natural, since, in fact, the transition period in Algeria and Russia continues, because life poses more and more new problems. Therefore, the newly formed state structures and the corresponding administrative elites face previously unknown conflicts and tasks that require fundamentally different solutions than in the old days. In view of this, disputes between "marketeers" and "statesmen" continue, but now mainly not on the question of whether privatization, private business and market relations are necessary. Both in Russia and Algeria, the majority, including sociologists and economists, do not doubt that they are necessary. But to what extent should they be developed? How can they be combined with the interests of the majority of the working-age population, which has become a victim of a rather harsh transition to market dominance in both Russia and Algeria? How to combine absolutely necessary and, according to many researchers, inevitable modernization and globalization with the solution of socio-economic and other problems a significant (if not the predominant) part of the people who have borne the heavy consequences of the systemic crisis of the transition period in almost all spheres of life?

These questions were not answered definitively. Obviously, each country must work out this response independently and is already working on it. Best said about it Nordin Grim in the newspaper El Watan (February 1-2, 2008), describing Algeria's policy as "an incomplete transition to a market economy in the absence of strategy and security." He may have exaggerated, but to some extent summarized what was said at the colloquium (in different expressions and with different degrees of criticism) by his compatriots. All of them, comparing the experience of the two countries, usually emphasized that " the Russians, faced with a tangle of problems much more complex than ours, have made much further progress in creating a market system." At the same time, all of them, from Bouzidi to Jabi, acknowledged that the development of their country during the transition period "went in unfavorable conditions" and now no one knows exactly where it is going and what kind of society they want to build. In their opinion, the "oil rent" in Algeria "blocks the transition to a liberal system", and in Russia it allows you to create market mechanisms and perform the functions of a world power.

Permanent link to this publication: