Algeria’s courts have recently demonstrated a heavy-handed approach in their battle against consumer goods speculation, with the conviction of two individuals in Oran for hoarding over a ton of coffee. Sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment each, alongside hefty fines and public shaming, the punishment is as severe as it is symbolic. While the government’s determination to combat illegal speculation is commendable, this case raises serious questions about the fairness and effectiveness of targeting individuals as scapegoats for a much larger, systemic problem.
The prosecution’s case is straightforward: the accused were found guilty of stockpiling coffee with the alleged intention of creating a shortage, thus violating Algeria’s anti-speculation law. This law, introduced in 2021, was designed to curb illegal practices that lead to inflated prices of essential goods. And indeed, coffee is a sensitive commodity, particularly in Algeria, where its affordability is intertwined with daily life. However, punishing two individuals so severely for actions that are likely symptomatic of deeper flaws in the system feels like a misguided attempt at resolution.
As a writer observing this issue, I find it hard to believe that these harsh sentences will truly address the root of the problem. Speculation does not arise in a vacuum. It is often fueled by broader economic challenges such as poor supply chain management, inadequate market oversight, and global market fluctuations. In the case of coffee, Algeria’s efforts to cap prices and subsidize the product are well-intentioned, but they do not eliminate the fundamental pressures that lead to shortages or hoarding. Blaming and penalizing two individuals for what is clearly a systemic issue only serves as a temporary band-aid, diverting attention from the structural reforms that are urgently needed.
Moreover, this punitive approach risks creating an atmosphere of fear rather than fostering collaboration among market players. By focusing solely on individuals, the government is ignoring the wider network of dysfunctions—ranging from inconsistent enforcement of market regulations to the monopolization of supply chains—that perpetuate speculation. If the objective is to protect consumers and stabilize markets, then the solution must be systemic, not personal.
The practice of publicly shaming those convicted, through the publication of their judgments in national newspapers, also raises ethical concerns. While the intent may be to deter others, it risks vilifying individuals without addressing the broader context in which their actions occurred. Are these individuals truly the masterminds behind Algeria’s consumer goods shortages? Or are they merely small players caught in a flawed and corrupt system?
Instead of treating individuals as scapegoats, the government should focus on reforming the mechanisms that allow speculation to thrive. This includes improving supply chain transparency, ensuring equitable distribution of essential goods, and addressing corruption within the broader economic system. It also means reevaluating whether Algeria’s price-capping policies, though well-meaning, are sustainable and effective in the long run.
Fighting speculation is undoubtedly necessary, but it must be done in a way that is fair, strategic, and focused on long-term solutions. Harsh sentences and public humiliation may serve as a show of strength, but they will not solve the structural issues that underpin the problem. Algeria needs a smarter, more holistic approach—one that goes beyond symbolic punishments and addresses the real, systemic flaws in the market. Only then can we hope to create a fair and stable economic environment for all.
Comments