Apart from them being a linguistic or cultural problem, the protests of Algerian tribal inhabitants in Tizi Ouzou put forth deep-seated problems, not the least of which is the demand to adopt a system of autonomy for this region of Amazigh identity, a demand that should not be looked at outside of the system of advanced building of the modern state. Indeed, the winds of demanding rights that are blowing over the world are no longer restricted to the political notions of the rights and duties of citizenship, but have in fact exceeded them towards consecrating their extension into economic, social and cultural rights. Nevertheless, the systems of autonomy, as formed by the choices which were resorted to by European countries such as Italy, Spain and Germany, came in response to the developmental challenges that followed the end of World War II, imposed themselves and rendered the social, cultural and economic fabric of these countries and of others fit to integrate into wagers to fill the gaps of divergence between regions and provinces. And just as investments have flowed from the North to the South, turning the space of Spanish Andalusia into a model for striking the agreement of modernity, the same applies to the industrial North of Italy, which has drawn the South towards complementarity, while the unique German experience has been foremost among the obstacles that drove East Germany, after the collapse of the Cold War, to join the caravan of German unity. The conclusion is that only strong and cohesive countries can head towards systems of autonomy that ensure the sway of unity within the framework of plurality, politically and culturally expressed as an aspect of coexistence unexposed to clashes and discord. What this means is that such a choice is not subjected to religious, ethnic or civil motives, as much as it is based in redefining the role of the central government, which willingly relinquishes non-strategic powers for the sake of improving the economic and social situation within the boundaries of a balanced democracy. There is no comparison with the difference in dissimilar cases, in which the state can be subjected to the dangers of fragmentation and division under the guise of religious, ethnic or sectarian conflicts. Indeed, experience has shown that factors of such a degree of sensitivity in ideological differences, sectarian tendencies and foreign relations can be used to strike the unity of the state and encourage emotional misgivings, especially when it comes to measures that are not innocent and that play on the elements of contradiction between some societies, particularly in the Arab World, which has come to face the infiltration of such threats under the guise of clinging to cultural identity, or what is known as the components of indigenous peoples. The region of North Africa, with the Arab, Amazigh and African references of its historical constituents, has in turn not been spared by the conflicts that play on the chords of cultural identity. And as much as it has been able to endure in the face of the conflicts of fragmentation and balkanization, as formulated by the colonial process it had been subjected to since the beginning of the past century, it has to the same extent become forced to support rearranging the internal mosaic, so as not to be taken by storm by negative developments. Indeed, what is most dangerous is not the rise of Amazigh, Sahrawi or Tuareg voices demanding that cultural, economic and political rights be ensured, as such challenges cannot be overcome by attempts to eliminate them or by refusing to hear their rising or dim intonations. Rather, the danger lies in leaving them repressed and bound to explode today or tomorrow. Indeed, the element of time alone does not have the ability to dispel facts on the grounds, and not one North African country seems safe and fortified against such threats, unless preventive and preemptive measures are taken before it is too late. Throughout the periods of recession that characterized the situation of Maghreb countries in the past decade and before it, issues and challenges have multiplied, the preoccupation with issues of extremism and terrorism not being the first of them. A result of this was internal seclusion from dealing with the growth of Amazigh demands, whether at the level of pressure to recognize the Amazigh language constitutionally, in education and in administrative and trade transactions, or at the level of assimilating elites with Amazigh authorities of reference within state institutions. A noteworthy paradox is the fact that Amazigh inhabitants have alone been able to transcend geographic divisions, leaping over barriers and sealed borders. This does not mean that the remaining constituents of the fabric of Maghreb society have relied on accepting the status quo imposed by geographic boundaries and political disputes, but that the reference of identity has become more influential. Only one thing will ensure that the Maghreb region will move forward, and that is the serious preoccupation with rearranging its internal situation on the standard of respecting the political, economic and cultural rights of all of its constituents. On the other hand, persistence in antagonizing this or that constituent, against this or that country, will not be a sound choice, at the very least because the rise of Europe was originally built on strengthening all of its constituents. The problem is that the people of the Maghreb want to adopt the European experience without forgetting their small wars, which were not as violent as the wars waged by the Europeans against each other.
