(Page 3 of 33) - Making Differences Matter: Liberal Reform Movements and Nationalist Mobilization in Colonial Morocco and Algeria authored by Lawrence, Adria.

reforms sought accommodation with French rulers, during the nationalist movement, such
accommodation became unthinkable. Nationalist mobilization in favor of independence focused
on challenging the foreign nature of imperial rule, rather than specific injustices of colonial
policy. Through rethinking the implications of each set of demands, I take seriously the platform
for liberal reforms as an alternative to nationalist separatism, one that proponents believed would
improve the lives of those living under colonial rule. Broadly categorizing both sets of demands
as nationalist obscures very real differences between the two movements.

Nationalist platforms are not necessarily incompatible with democratic goals. Pre-World War II
reformers could have incorporated both separatist and democratic demands. In Algeria and
Morocco, however, liberal reformers did not call for separation. If the liberal reforms they
requested had been granted, both places might have become more integrated into the French
empire, not separate from it. Likewise, nationalist movements in favor of separation could also
have advocated a democratic structure for the separate state. In some places, nationalist
movements did seek a federal, democratic structure, either within or outside the French empire.
But often leaders stopped emphasizing liberal values in favor of national unity in the face of
foreign dominance. In Morocco, the independence movement asserted the power of the Sultan
as the sovereign head of an independent state. In Algeria, as Algerian sociologist Abdelkader
Djeghloul noted, “the war set in motion a process of destruction of the capital of democratic
experience and modern politics, which the different political organizations had begun to
accumulate before 1954” (quoted in Stora 2001).

While I argue in this section that the content of the demands for liberal reform and those for
separation are distinct, the lines between the two movements are not. Generally speaking, calls
for independence were characteristic of the post-World War II era in both Morocco and Algeria,
while demands for reforms were dominant before the war, but this characterization is imperfect.
Organizations and individuals within the colonies were not part of homogenous, disciplined
groups. Some individuals called for independence earlier than others. In Morocco, mobilization
in favor of independence did not begin until World War II, when elites who had previously
advocated reform within the protectorate structure began advocating independence. In Algeria,
nationalist mobilization in favor of independence began before World War II, while other elites
were mobilizing for liberal reform. Algerian organizations represented distinct political currents,
but the liberal reformers dominated in the pre-war era. Some reformers continued to ask for
reforms beyond World War II, particularly when separation seemed unlikely, but generally,
many of those advocating liberal reform in the pre-war period began supporting the idea of
separation in the post-war era. By characterizing these two discourses of mobilization as
separate movements, I mean to stress the general change over time from one set of goals to
another, rather than to do justice to varying preferences and demands by individuals. The
purpose is to understand why particular discourses are characteristic of political action at
particular points in time.

If we accept that the liberal reform movement was quite different from the nationalist movement
for independence, what explains the shift? Part II addresses this question, discussing how

Although reform movements were articulated on behalf of a subjugated group, and could thus also be called

nationalist in a non-separatist sense, for the sake of clarity, I refer to mobilization in favor of liberal rights and
reforms as the reform movement, and the separatist movement as nationalist.