I am highly offended by your support for an authoritarian system that continues to rule 30 million people against their will.

What makes you think that we all want to be a “modern European country”?

With all the problems with our “backward” region have, we have not produced anything close to a Nazi state that slaughtered over 10 million people and started 2 world wars in which many millions died uncessarly. Nazi Germany was a modern, highly developed and “civilized” (the land of Bethoven) European country. For the rest of the European countries, well they had their share in killing backward people in the millions too during their colonial adventures.

Apparently you’d pick a Nazi European state over conservative (and relatively democratic) Iran.

This authoritarin system that you support will fall, sooner or later.

It has no legitimacy among the people.

If the king wants to rule, he needs to run for elections and he also needs to stop acting like a God.

Theorically you’re right, but realistically your views won’t work in a country where tribalism is still very strong. Observ what’s going in our Saharian provinces coveted by a native Moroccan of Marrakech .

Moroccans are not ready for democracy and all the components attached to it , a change like in Norway or Spain as suggested in your commentary above.
Morocco needs right now a strong leader like Mohamed VI to protect it against anarchy
destabilization and separatism.
We don’t want to follow the example of the liberation and democratisation of Iraq or Iran, Palestine etc…It only profits to Morocco’s enemies.
Someone needs to live in Morocco or to be a Moroccan native in order to understand deeply Moroccan character and its politics. Morocco is different, it’is not Spain or another European country. It’s part of Middle East : something very few pandits can really understand.
———————-
PS

I don’t represent anybody but myself.
When I use “WE”, I mean me.

RVW, I appreciate your coming back and stating that you don’t feel “complacent satisfaction” with the way things are in Morocco. And I assume that means that you wouldn’t agree with everything your compatriot “AC/DC” said even though you are taking the same side of the argument. But when you talk about a Casablanca elite more concerned with sexual freedom than what interests ordinary Moroccans, you are projecting. Sexual freedom isn’t the subject of the editorial that got Benchemsi in trouble—limiting the king’s authority is. And I can assure you that his views on this subject resonate with many ordinary Moroccans who may not like the Westernization of Morocco. Democracy is extremely popular among the poor and frustrated young people who are about as far from the Casablanca elite as it is possible to get. They see the entire political class as corrupt, including most journalists who only sing praises of the king and party leaders—and they are desperate for some forum, some channel to express their views, which are the hopes for Moroccan progress we all share. The question is how to get there, and what is needed is a healthy, open debate, not an attitude of “Let’s all march behind our glorious leader.” The king needs to trust his own people, and Benchemsi isn’t the only one to observe that the throne speech didn’t express that trust. So this is not about Benchemsi or his magazine’s agenda—this is about the idea he is expressing, limited power, and it should be debated as an idea rather than having the State step in and say, “Lines have been crossed—to prison!”

AC/DC, what bothers me about your argument is first of all the idea that the king is somehow alone in developing Morocco. You call him “the developer of Morocco” as if there is only one. But M6 doesn’t live in a nation of one person—there are 30 million Moroccans. Each one has a role to play. Second, you say the Benchemsi is trying to sabotage the king’s work “in order to gain popularity and power.” If so, he chose a strange way to do it. Stating publicly what many people think privately (and might prefer to keep private) is a risky way to be popular in Morocco, and it’s hard to see this as a road to power. Third, you say that if Morocco were to allow the popular will to express itself in the voting booth, then it would become like Iran, ruled by Islamic extremists, or Algeria, fighting a civil war to prevent that result. This is a scare tactic that we’ve debated here in the past, and I reject it. The best way to avoid that result is to give people like Benchemsi a voice. If there is nothing to choose from except one-man rule or revolution, then one day, the nation may explode into crisis. None of us wants that to happen, which is why I feel that constitutional reform is imperative. It doesn’t have to be all at once, but the path of limited authority should be on the horizon. Eight years ago, when M6 came to power, Moroccans had great hopes of a democratic new dawn, and this year’s throne speech seemed to close the door on those hopes. Finally, you say that Morocco is not Norway, but how did Norway become the democratic model it is? Its monarchy gradually stepped back from politics, allowed its power to be limited, and gave room to opposing views. The same happened in Spain after the death of Franco, or in places like Brazil and Argentina after years of military rule. One-man rule needs to be replaced with rule by the people, because the people collectively have more talent than one man. I agree with you that social and economic development in Morocco are criticial, but I am with “Cat in Rabat” on this one. Only democracy can assure that development responds to the needs of the people, rather than the wishes of a wealthy and well-connected elite.

One final point. Can anyone tell me why the debate we are having here on this blog is harmful to Morocco? Because what Benchemsi and his advocates are defending is the right of ordinary Moroccans to have the same free and open exchange of ideas concerning their future that we are enjoying here. Nothing more nor less.