In the era of Hassan II and especially after the two coups d’état of 1971 and 1972, Hassan II sought to buy the obedience of the Army generals and the men of his entourage by giving them the chance to profit from the nation’s resources, and by permitting them to have special economic advantages in order to avoid similar betrayals, espeially since at the time the system’s opponents were numerous, so that the Makhzen sought to buy the consent of its policial opponents by inventing positions of govermental responsibility that would support the maximum of opposing voices while keeping in the hands of the Makhzen the so-called “sensitive” posts such as the Foreign Ministry and the Interior Ministry which was governed for two decades by Hassan II’s right hand man Driss Basri. In fact that’s why France currently has 15 ministers and Morocco has more than 30! Meanwhile the Makhzen sent other opponents to the famous Tazammart prison, and we know what took place in the 1970s such as torture. At the same time the Makhzen found it necessary to monopolize the nation’s economy to control the sources of money in order to keep them from being used against the system, and that’s why the nation’s development occurred with a rhythm that led more and more toward poverty and misery. It was a sort of exchange between the stability of the system and the development of the nation. In the end, in one way or another the system was able to manipulate the situation to its advantage.

Thus after the death of Hassan II, the new king Mohammed VI took power at a time when there were no longer political opponents against the system, and Moroccans were inspired to have a young king who proclaimed a new era for his people based on the fight against poverty and forms of corruption, economic development for the nation, etc. — but now ten years after the arrival of Mohammed VI, why is change not more visible for everyone?

I think that despite the royal will to build Morocco, the problem lies in the forms of corruption, which are rooted everywhere in the foundations of the state and result in a very slow rhythm of development, or to put it another way, the royal will hasn’t found enough people to translate itself into action quickly enough, for several reasons.

First of all, to absorb the criticism of politicians who profited in the days of Hassan II, it was necessary to give them free rein to practice their forms of corruption, which means that the government and the parliament are there just for show in order to claim that this is a nation of institutions, when in reality the decisions that impact the destiny and the economy of the nation are made inside the palace. Indeed there was no other reason at the time to accept the political game as it was, except to profit from the nation’s riches and by giving illusory promises to the citizens during the elections, otherwise how could we explain that a politician would promise the citizens something he would be unable to carry out even if he won? This is a process that went on for decades, and at the same time, it’s this circle that frustrated Moroccans and disgusted them with politics in general. As we say in a popular proverb, “lli galha lmakhzen hiya lli kayna,” which can be translated, “There are only those who say Makhzen.” Imagine how it could be that corruption has grown for decades without hearing that a single governmental official was found guilty of any crime, as if we had angels governing us! Indeed, this corruption in the form of a monster remains the obstacle for the nation’s development, but at the same time it’s the consequence of a certain kind of politics.

Also there is a lack of initiative for reform, whether constitutional, judicial, etc., and it’s normal that politicans who have lost their legitimacy before the people would avoid this sort of initiative, while a royal initiative in this sense is perhaps pointless at this time. We say that to sow seeds, good earth is needed, but as I said, the royal will hasn’t found enough sincere individuals who can follow it. And fighting against forms of corruption unfortunately takes a great deal of time.

I think the solution is to find a new inspiration for Moroccans at the political level in order to regain their confidence. Perhaps the party of Fouad Ali Al Himma, called Authenticity and Modernity, was created in order to follow the royal will to develop the nation, and we can imagine that this party is supported by the king since Al Himma is the king’s friend — yet the perpetual question for me is why Al Himma has brought together so many politicians of bad reputation in his political party?

Must we choose between democracy and the Islamists? Before trying to answer this question, we need to remind ourselves that the state of democracy in the Arab world was a problem even before the Islamists appeared on the scene as undeniable political movements. The real challenge to democracy came from governments in the Arab world that monopolized power for decades, basing their monopoly on a mastery of all the foundations of the state. At that time, any effort to advance democracy found itself confronted with the repression of the security apparatus. Not even electoral competition was permitted, and the result was a social and political exclusion that eliminated any counterweight to these systems. Certainly there are those who point out that this exclusion, along with poverty, was precisely what noursished the growth of Islamism; but Islamism also represented a new inspiration, since the Arab people saw that there were movements that shared their concerns, until in the end it was impossible to speak of the majority of the population without speaking of Islamist movements, which had quite simply become popular movements.

As a result of this, the question of future relations between the West and the Arab world is problematic today when we imagine Islamist movements in charge of Arab states; especially since these movements, whether they be in Morocco, Egypt or Kuwait, demonstrate their support each time there is an election. This makes it impossible to consider democratizing the Arab world without these movements, since the more democracy is practiced, the stronger the Islamists get. Some will have a hard time understanding this process, but that’s the way it is. We need to keep in mind that in many cases, there is perhaps no better choice before the people than the Islamists. Not all such movements have the same concept of Islamism, and I don’t want to spell out the differences here, but allow me to simply note that there are Islamist movements that respect the system in which they have agreed to participate through electoral competition, such as the PJD in Morocco, while others seek a more fundamental change, such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt which remains in perpetual conflict with the Mubarak regime. We also need to distinguish between those movements that take religion as the driving force of their agenda, and those that use religion as a reference point while pursuing a pragmatic political program.

To those who are afraid of the Islamists, I would ask them to suspend their prejudices for the time being, and recognize that there are Islamists with modern viewpoints. For their part, the Islamists should take steps to encourage and reassure the West. I would propose for example that they collaborate with Western organizations that support democracy and human rights, in order to give a practical demonstration that Islamism isn’t a closed system, but rather an open and modern one that admits the interests of the other side. We will never be able to agree on all aspects of life, but compatibility between the two worldviews should be the objective, especially now that Islamist movements are capable of arriving in power by democratic means, and without these movements we won’t see the emergence of democracy in the Arab world.

We can always ask ourselves questions like this: Is the future of democracy under Islamist movements a positive one? Without prejudging or getting ahead of ourselves, I think we should first of all give these movements a chance, while insisting on reforms essential to the practice of democracy such as freedom of expression, independent media, and the rule of law; as well as the development of networks of civil and human rights organizations that are able to protect the citizens against all abuses of power. These reforms need to be strong enough to prevent monopolies of any kind in the future, thus keeping open the possibility of alternance between Islamists and non-Islamists.

Two days ago my friend doga, who has contributed several times to this blog, wrote to me to apologize for not finishing an article he promised to write. He was disturbed by the violence in Gaza, and the deaths of innocent children which have been neglected in the Western media. With his permission, I’m reproducing the e-mail he sent me, because it is a cry of conscience that deserves to be heard. I hope that publishing it helps to ease his frustration at not being able to do anything in the face of injustice. For the rest of us, we might ask ourselves how we can sit here, and take images like the one above for granted.

I’m sorry I haven’t communicated with you over the past few days, but I haven’t been able to concentrate. I was on the point of finishing a modest article for your blog, but I lost the energy because of the massacre in Gaza. I saw children whose souls left their bodies right in front of Al Jazeera’s cameras. It was horrible for me to see those images, and the helicopters that arbitrarily dropped bombs on people who were expecting a bomb to fall on them at any moment, all on live television.

When the West revolted against the Church and against injustice in general, I thought that humanity was siding with what is sacred rather than with books, or even with God Himself. When the world stood with the Jews at the time of the Holocaust, and the West compensated them a bit, I thought it was an act that was purely humane in nature!

I saw how Western presidents were proud of hosting or visiting with Nelson Mandela. When the United States waged two wars after 3000 of its citizens died because of terrorists, everyone took the initiative to be against terrorism. Then Israel went to war with Hezbollah because that group kidnapped two soldiers from the Israeli army.

What bothers me isn’t this sort of corrupt, interest-based politics, because despite the fact that I’m expressing myself innocently, I know about this kind of politics. But why do you or I, or others, have to get caught up in it even involuntarily? Why not fight so that human beings are valued as sacred? Otherwise, we have to say that the people of Gaza aren’t human!

You can see why I’m saying that I can’t concentrate, because I’ve noticed that there is a huge force that obliges us to enter into its game. Innocents enter into it, and intellectuals, and human rights activists. We all enter into the game as defined by this force, whether voluntarily or involuntarily.

I’ve just understood why there are associations that fight against drug use or street crime by trying to convince people that arbitrary crime and drug use are a danger to daily life. I’ve come to understand that they do this to hide organized crime. I’m almost certain that it’s the same in politics, that money is handed out to associations that talk about human rights in order to try to convince people that the danger threatening their lives can be found in things like preventing a journalist from working for ten years, or throwing someone in jail because he is gay. In the end, the purpose is once again to hide the organized crime that exists within our global instututions.

I remind you once again that it bothers me to be forced to enter into this dirty game, even involuntarily.

— • —

For those who remain largely clueless, as do I, I’ll provide a little context on what was going on in Gaza over the last few days. But let’s not get distracted from doga’s larger point. Israeli violence aside, or questions of who started it or who is most to blame, we are all part of a corrupt global system. Whatever comfort and security we may have, it is ours thanks to the global policeman that destroys pharmaceutical plants, wedding parties, and families in their sleep, all in the name of “fighting terror.”

Palestine threatened with a holocaust, Electronic Intifada:

Israeli officials began damage limitation efforts after the country’s deputy defense minister Matan Vilnai threatened Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip with a “holocaust.”

The comments came a day after Israeli occupation forces killed 31 Palestinians, nine of them children, one a six-month-old baby, in a series of air raids across the Gaza Strip. …

Speaking to Israeli army radio today, Vilnai said, “the more Qassam [rocket] fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, [the Palestinians] will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves.”

A report on the BBC News website headlined “Israel warns of Gaza ‘holocaust’” noted that the word “holocaust”—shoah in Hebrew—is “a term rarely used in Israel outside discussions of the Nazi genocide during World War II.”

Media blackout of Palestinian suffering, Democracy Now:

Amy Goodman, host: Israeli troops have reportedly pulled out of northern Gaza after days of fighting that killed more than 112 Palestinians in the deadliest military assault on Gaza in years. … The clashes reached a peak on Saturday, after Israel sent in a regiment of ground troops in an operation dubbed “Hot Winter” that killed seventy-seven Palestinians in two days. According to Gaza health ministry statistics, twenty-two children were killed. More than 350 people were wounded. …

Amira Hass, Israeli journalist: This kind of news is completely absent from the news diet, the journalistic diet of Israelis…. I, for personal reasons, am today in Tel Aviv and not in Ramallah… [and] I can report about how life sixty kilometers north to Gaza, how life is normal, how everybody—except for one demonstration yesterday, that the group of leftwing Israelis held in front of the Ministry of Security… there was one demonstration, and that’s it, and people live their life.

As a Moroccan teacher, when I watch Barack Obama’s speeches and try to analyze what messages he wants to convey, I come to the conclusion that of all the candidates running for presidency, he is unique. Being black is an important quality that he knows how to make work for him instead of against him, as shown in his “Yes We Can” slogan. Throughout history, African-Americans have suffered from racism and its effects. Clearly the condition of blacks is much better than it once was, but they are still being treated as second-class citizens, and most of the good jobs go to whites. Obama stands for real democracy in America, and if he wins the presidency, I think it will be a great change in the country. Simply by being who he is, Obama is a symbol of change.

There is something I can’t understand in the language of Obama’s most serious challenger, Hillary Clinton. She talks about her so-called experience, but I laugh when I hear people taking that for granted. Even the media have noticed that her experience is less than it seems. When the Bush administration made the fatal decision to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam, Obama opposed that dangerous step, and said so publicly. Unlike him, Hillary supported the invasion based on the idea that all Americans should fight terrorism. If that is what Hillary means by experience, how can we take her seriously? If she were really an experienced leader, she would have realized that the Iraqi war would be one of the worst mistakes in American history. It’s true that Obama is much younger than Hillary, but experience is not only a matter of age.

I think that Obama realizes that it isn’t easy to run for president, and that even if he does win, it won’t be possible for him to change everything overnight. Some people say that for either candidate to win would be a huge step forward for America. Hillary would be the first woman president, and Obama would be the first black man to lead the global policeman, the most powerful nation in the world, which has been a dream for all black people. Yet if we go back a couple of centuries, we will discover that the situation of women was never as tragic as that of African-Americans, who were treated as animals or worse. It wasn’t until the civil rights era, and the movement led by Martin Luther King, that black people won most of their rights. For this, Dr. King was assassinated! It reminds me of Jesus Christ, whom Christians say was a savior who sacrificed his life so that humanity could live in peace. Dr. King said, “I have a dream,” but he died before seeing his dream accomplished. It is accomplished now, so if Martin Luther King could call for change and succeed, why can’t Obama do the same?

In my opinion, it is high time for Americans to realize that democracy is more than a slogan. It isn’t only a word we hear in the media or in speeches. Real democracy means offering all people the opportunity to give voice to their thoughts, regardless of their color or race.

As a young Moroccan, I believe that what Benchemsi said in his article is important, because he calls for constitutional reforms that all Moroccans hope to see realized as soon as possible, in order to achieve a balance of power. I don’t see why there are people who attribute to him the worst motivations. Perhaps they are paid to do it, or perhaps they are upset that they have neither the ability, nor the courage to speak as he did.

Even the tone of his article appeals to me, because the majority of young people in Morocco talk like that, and at the university I’ve heard plenty of students say the same thing, in the same way. You would need an international military force to round up all the young Moroccans who think like Benchemsi, because there are so many who share his ideas.

The King himself, when he came to power, did away with the obligation to kiss his hand, because he understood that there are plenty of people who don’t like doing it, even if there are others who take pleasure in it. And there is also a third group, who kiss the King’s hand because their spirit is carried away with hypocrisy.

The essence of democracy is that we should be able to speak out like Benchemsi did without the slightest fear of reprisal. Yet perhaps freedom of expression and democracy, which Morocco proclaims endlessly and without shame, are merely a way to numb our thoughts, as if our future were really quite narrow, and limited to the voice of one man. Even to speak we need the authorization of the State! Maybe we should remind the State that freedom of expression is our natural right, given to us by God along with use of our brains, not a privilege handed out by the Minister of the Interior to suit the hypocrisy of those in power!

It is ridiculous for Morocco to believe that this type of evolution of ideas can weaken the unity of the nation. Have they forgotten that evolution is a force in itself? It is what lets us determine which road we should take, and by what means. I want to remind all those who sincerely love Morocco that it isn’t enough to distance ourselves from the abuses we see, we must do whatever it takes to cure them. Otherwise, we can no longer hope that Truth will prevail. Nor is it wise for us to wait until our own turn comes to have our mouths shut by censure.

— • —

“I was hoping to join you in prison, because it is a prison of liberty.”
—Aboubakr Jamaï to Ahmed Reda Benchemsi, August 11 in Casablanca, quoted in Almasae (quote not online).

Doga is a 21-year-old Moroccan who graduated near the top of his high school class, went on to study computer networking and law, and is now trying to find a job to support himself and his family, like millions of others his age. He told me that the king’s recent throne speech had discouraged him from voting in the upcoming elections, because now more than ever he is convinced that voting won’t result in the kind of change he wants to see, namely constitutional reform. Because his ideas are similar to Benchemsi’s, I encouraged him to write a defense in his own words, and the above post is the result.

As a reminder, in Benchemsi’s recent editorial “Your Majesty… What Are You Saying?” he criticizes King Mohammed VI for contradicting himself by claiming absolute political authority while at the same time dismissing as “nihilists” those who say the upcoming elections are a farce. He addresses the king a familiar tone that some would consider disrespectful, and which he himself refers to as “insolence” (dssara). The response by the Moroccan authorities was to confiscate all copies of the editorial, and charge Benchemsi with “disrespect of the king” for which he now faces a penalty of up to five years in prison.

Doga has posted here three times before (Young Moroccans: A Neglected Future, Political Paralysis in Morocco, and If Not Now, When?) and participated in online conversations I’ve transcribed (What Is Truth? about Holocaust denial, and Debriefing Doga about political reform in Morocco). If you want to reply to him, feel free to write your comments in either French or English. He doesn’t read English (his text was written in French) but I will be happy to translate.

My French-speaking readers may be interested in this audio interview in which Benchemsi himself discusses the recent events.

UPDATE: Yahia has published a French version of Doga’s text on his famous Antiblog.

— • —

It’s clear that everyone already understands the need to initiate real change in Morocco, including those in power. So why is it that every time someone calls for change, there is always the question of whether it is the right time? Is that the question that is really blocking us?

Whenever a society feels the need for change, it’s because that society has arrived in a situation where it can no longer continue in the same direction, or where a course correction is needed. Yet we need to ask, what type of change interests those already in power? It’s clear that profiteers who seek their own interests and not those of the community have arrived in power as a result of numerous errors, including our own, namely our absence from the decision-making process that determines the future of our country. This absence, which we have permitted too easily, has greatly aided the profiteers to entrench themselves in power. It’s obvious that they and their supporters are the same people who claim that this isn’t the right time to make a change, because the only sort of change that interests them is one that will reinforce their mastery over the political, economic and social order, a mastery that will further increase their profits. They are always quick to marginalize our country’s true patriots who sincerely want to start the process of change. In the eyes of the corrupt and powerful, those patriots are like a clarion call to justice that will eventually demand a judge to bring an end to their abuses. Unfortunately we have gotten used to sitting on our hands as we watch the exclusion of these patriots, and one of the best examples is Aboubakr Jamaï who endured numerous pressures designed to smother his voice, until he was finally forced to leave Morocco.

The real question is not one of choosing the right time, because “when” is always now. Rather, the real question we should be asking is “how.” How to change? How to say no to things as they are, and impose our own ideas? How to begin? How to plant the seeds of confidence among our people? This question of confidence is important so long as people continue to fear being the victims of police repression. How can we change things without ending up in a cycle of violence?

If we ask these questions with reality in front of us, we will surely find ourselves confronted with the obstacle of ignorance, because as long as people have no understanding of the role oppression plays in their lives, and the ways in which their consent is manufactured in order to better exploit them and profit from them, no attempt at change can be useful. To start with, we need to find ways to stimulate people’s consciousness in order to better engage them in the process of change.

Destiny—A force external to the human will, which, according to certain beliefs, directs the universe, by fixing the course of events in an irrevocable fashion.

The force that controls the universe and the human will, and which is outside it, is none other than God. But there is something that doesn’t fit: if God controls the course of events, why does He punish innocent people—we, who are doing only what is ordained for us?

It’s absurd because, if the killer kills, it’s because God has established such a course. Why does the suicide kill himself, or the thief steal? For exactly the same reason. Moreover, does a human being—while in his mother’s womb or even sooner—chose to be born into a Muslim, Jewish or Christian family? After all, religion is profoundly ingrained into a child by his parents in most cases. So does that mean God is unfair to some? Why wouldn’t He make everyone be born a Muslim, if that is His ultimate religion? Even the proportion of those who convert to Islam is surely quite small.

Finally, must we trust word for word what is written in the holy books, or put our minds to work to find a reasonable interpretation?

Clandestine immigration, poverty, the political indifference of the young, illiteracy, unemployment, exclusion, marginalization, and so on…it’s obvious that all these theories and negative images point to a society with a serious social fragility, which they ponder with question marks and exclamation points. The question concerning us here is to what extent Morocco’s political parties are responsible for these consequences, since they are the representatives of the Moroccan people?

I see that it is important to provide a short summary of the history of Moroccan politics. As you know, Morocco was under a French protectorate, and during that decisive period in our history, there was the National Movement that fought against the colonialists, and this movement gave birth to two political parties during the 1940s, namely:

• the Independence Party (Istaqlal)
• the Moroccan Communist Party

The role of these two parties was to defend the country against imperialism, and to demand independence. All the forces of the nation rallied around the two parties, but after our false independence (1956 and 1960) there were conflicts over power in both parties, especially in the Independence Party which represented the popular majority. The left wing of this party broke away to form a new party called the National Union of Popular Forces (UNFP).

The UNFP was the strongest party, because it represented workers and farmers along with merchants. Also belonging to this party were numerous members of the resistance and the Liberation Army who had refused to join the national army and police. But the merchant class leading the party set aside its objectives, which can be summarized as resistance to authoritarian government in Morocco. As a result, resistance to the governing system was finally taken up by high school and college students, who revolted on March 23, 1965. The repressive system responded to their revolt with force, firing bullets at the demonstrators [and killing up to 1000 of them].

Even the Communist Party retreated from its objectives, namely to unite the working class and the farmers, by transforming itself into a party that knew little of its supposed inspiration, Marxism. They even changed their name to become the Party of Liberation and Socialism (PLS). As a result of the failure of the two leftist parties to tackle the politics of dependency head-on, new leftist factions emerged. A Marxist movement developed at the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s that later spawned underground organizations.

Because of ongoing conflicts within the political parties, there were always new parties forming. The UNFP gave birth to a party called the Socialist Union of Popular Forces (USFP), which in turn spawned three new parties, one in 1983 and two more in 2001. The PLS changed its name to the Party of Development and Socialism (PDS). Because of this splintering of forces, and the emergence of organizations that demonstrated against the authoritarian system, Morocco in the 1970s (the ”Years of Lead“) had no stability, only repression, secret prisons, concentration camps and arrests. The Makhzen [power structure] used every available means to kill off the struggle. Unfortunately the Makhzen got the system it wanted, a cruel system of course.

Since as we have seen, Morocco’s political parties have known nothing but division and infighting, they have never managed to unite their forces. Indeed, if we were to remove their masks, Moroccan politics would be nothing but the protection of moneyed interests, with the political parties racing toward the central authority, held by the king. The Makhzen penetrates the parties in order to manipulate them. To guarantee their participation in power, the party leaders become a second authoritarian force in Morocco that reflects the first. They open their doors to rich men who want to run for office and have seats in parliament, so they can get the baraka [perks] of political power, make money and protect their ill-gotten gains.

It can be deduced from this that the main thing the political parties have accomplished for the Moroccan people is betrayal, causing the people to lose confidence in their parties, and in their country. It is enough to see and hear what goes on in the streets, to understand that the concept of politics, parties and power is connected to the concept of profit, corruption and climbing the political ladder, with the aim of building villas and palaces on the dreams of the poor. The political culture is simply a culture of interests, rather than a culture of patriotism.

The question we come to now is how, with these worthless parties, can we hope to achieve human development?

To understand the political situation in Morocco, we need to understand that the political parties that were in the thick of the fight for democracy in the past, are the same parties that currently have a total lack of democracy. Therefore, it is necessary to begin by regaining popular trust in the party agendas. For the moment, these mean nothing to anyone. Indeed, one of the worst things we can say about the parties is that they are willing to work with a constitution that doesn’t allow them to participate in political decision making. For example, the constitution doesn’t give a clear right to the parliamentary majority to name the prime minister. Article 24 of the Moroccan Constitution says plainly that “the king names the prime minister.”

Of course there are corrupt people who want the situation to remain as it is. No one who rose to power through corruption will be protected later by the people. He’ll need another means of support! And no matter what the outcome of elections, it won’t bring about a strong government, because strong government doesn’t exist in the constitution!

Plato said that “every people gets the government it deserves,” but we need to give the Moroccan people the chance to make the changes they seek. We need to put in place a democratic constitution, as an authentic opening for real change. We can’t speak of reforms without speaking of political and constitutional reforms. The problem in Morocco, as you can see, is that the questions are clear, but no one wants to answer them. Even the constitutional framework the government is currently using doesn’t justify the ongoing political paralysis. The problem is that we have always had a politics of arbitrary authority, of dependency. There is no logic to the legal system, no legitimacy.

Another question that I see as essential and obvious is this. Can we realize human development without freeing the media? The media are tools that play an important role in developing human thought and civilization. Insofar as their goal is to provoke greater transparency, they are an important source of inspiration for liberty and independence, which are things that humanity needs to feel. These tools can always be found in a democratic environment.

We can use these tools as a reference standard, to measure the extent to which our country has succeeded in gaining its independence, and has been able to achieve its human development. We can use this same standard to say whether our country is open and independent, or secretive and dependent. Sadly, the majority of Moroccan journalists use their pens to cover up the dirty secrets of politics.

Guest Post. Doga is a 21-year-old Moroccan living in Fez, an ancient city which has over a million people today, most of them poor. This is his first article on the internet. He excuses himself for his “scattered ideas” by saying, “I wanted my ideas to be poorly organized, in order to give a realistic idea of what’s going on in the head of a young Moroccan.”

After spending some time in my country, Morocco, among the most likely questions for which a visitor might want a response are:

• Do the people understand how their country is organized?
• Do the people love their country?
• Does the will of the people have an influence on the future of the country?

These are the questions asked by “curious” people who understand that Morocco is more than historic landmarks, hotels, couscous and amusements. Morocco is also a country where more than half the population is poor and illiterate, and where young people are the largest social group. Thus the above questions concern young people most of all.

One can ask at what moment the consciousness of a young Moroccan begins to question his environment, his interests, and his future.

Everyone knows the obstacles that tend to prevent the development of the Arab citizen: lack of analytical ability, initiative, or critical thinking. These obstacles exist both for those who have been to school, and for those who have never studied. The difference is that the first group knows how to read and write. But for young people who have been to school, after graduating they begin to have worries, because their diploma is a sword that severs reason from reality before their eyes, creating contradictions where previously they had believed, in all innocence, that reason and reality were compatible.

Everywhere in the world, the main advantage offered by a high school diploma is the opportunity to go on to college. But for Moroccans, entering such an establishment is a horrible choice. For a generation now, university studies have been a waste of time, because the goal is “to study in order to work,” but unfortunately there is a large number of unemployed college graduates already. As a result, the university has lost its value as a sacred place where we can develop ourselves, exchange ideas, and discover wider horizons than we had imagined.

There is an underlying truth to all this, which is that young people sense the indifference towards them, whether by failing to encourage their participation in political decisions, or by failing to create structures that might allow them to exploit their energies. Despite the discussions, conferences, programs and projects directed at young people, in the end these remain words divorced from action. Young Moroccans, like the youth of other poor countries, are the victims of corrupt power and of financial interests that give no importance to the human being. Indeed, as a result of the worsening economic conditions, and the problems these cause young people, there are those who risk throwing themselves into the ocean in an attempt to reach a country where life is easy. The images we see in the media remain the greatest witness to what “LAHRIG” means for Moroccans.

N.B. “…in Moroccan Arabic [lahrig] means ‘burning,’ in reference to the economic migrants’ burning of their past and their taking risks when they try to cross the few kilometres that separate Morocco from Spain on small boats.”

Confronted with this blockage, young people start to wonder, “Why do I find myself in a house that is too small when there is someone living in a huge villa, or even a palace? Why are there people with Jaguars, when I struggle with what to eat each day? Why are Europeans better off than us? Is it because their officials and business owners love them, while our officials and business owners hate us?” Despite the simplicity of these questions, they push us to wonder, “What methods and criteria are being used to distribute our nation’s wealth and its revenues? Are they adapted to the realization of human development, especially since we’ve been hearing so much about the National Initiative for Human Development these past few years?”

How can we speak of fighting poverty without discussing the way wealth and revenues are distributed? Keep in mind that a lack of justice in the distribution of wealth, revenues and resources is a basic factor contributing to poverty in Morocco.

If it is true that young people are the future of this country, and if we are sincere, then we need to turn words into action, and put in place social, economic and social structures, and indeed laws, based on equality if we want our future to be better than our present, or our past.

If there’s anything you’d like to ask Doga, put your questions in the Comments section or send them to me by e-mail, and I’ll pass them on to him as themes to explore in future articles.