Author Archives: doga

Iran: Let’s Be Clear

1 Reply

Here is guest poster doga’s response to recent events in Iran. He warns of possible hidden motives in the West’s support for Mir-Hossein Mousavi, asking why the West has been quick to champion a man who is part of the same system they have so long criticized?

It’s clear that the reactions of Iranian society to the events of recent weeks, and to the pressures these events have placed on them, haven’t followed a clear logic either in favor of the individual or in favor of the Iranian authorities. It’s true that there has been violence against the demonstrators, but there has also been a destruction of private property which the police are responsible for protecting. For this reason, whether we are for these demonstrations or against them, if we are sincere we mustn’t betray our belief in the liberating and pacifying potential of reason and communication.

Before these events the West had the greatest difficulty in understanding the Iranian people, their way of thinking and their view of the world, and the Western media put their energies into perpetuating a distorted image such as the one presented in the American film Not Without My Daughter—but now all of a sudden everything is reversed, and the majority of Iranians are progressives who support the open, liberal vision of the reformer Mousavi. But are Mousavi’s ideas really as friendly to the West as they seem?

We need to remember that Mousavi is part of the overall Iranian system, even if he now claims that if he had succeeded in the presidential elections, the Revolutionary Guard would have launched a coup against him! We mustn’t forget that in the early days of the revolution he was the editor of the official journal of the Islamic Republican Party, then foreign minister and finally prime minister from 1981–1989 under the presidency of Ali Khomeini, who is none other than the current Supreme Leader of the Revolution, the highest post in the republic. Mousavi chose not to run for the presidency in 1997 when his reformist ally Mohammed Khatami was elected and then reelected by a significant margin, which goes to show that the reformers are part of the Islamic system and have been playing a direct role in it for years, even though the Islamic revolution is only 30 years old! That is why in normal circumstances the West would not support Mousavi today even with words, simply because he doesn’t share their values and goals.

We can say that the West is more against Ahmadinejad than it is for Mousavi. Indeed it is against the system in general and for civil disorder, for well-known reasons. It is hardly obvious that Western call for liberty and for demonstrations, mixed with the indirect call for an uprising against the Iranian system, is in the best interests of the Iranian people, who in my view are an open and tolerant people despite the stereotypic image we see in the media.

In my opinion we need to be vigilant if we want to understand objectively what is currently happening in Iran, because there is always the possibility of hidden interests that want to manipulate the system to their own private ends. We may agree with someone who tells us that gambling destroys the social life of the people, but never with someone who loses everything in the casino and then tells us the same thing!

Stuck in the Same Circle

Leave a reply

Guest poster doga was inspired to write this article in the run-up to the Moroccan local elections, which to no one’s surprise were won by the “palace party” of the king’s friend Fouad Ali Al Himma.

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?

Democracy and the Islamists

1 Reply

Following his recent post on the need for a democratic transition in Egypt, I asked doga the question, “What happens if democratic elections in the Arab world bring the Islamists to power? How do you answer those who might think that dictatorship is better?” Here is his response.

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.

Democracy First

Leave a reply

It’s been a while since guest poster doga has written here, but today he is back. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is 81 years old, and has held power since 1981. Nearly everyone believes he is grooming his son Gamal to succeed him. What does this mean for Egypt, and how should the outside world react? doga addresses these questions below.

Not long ago, Egypt hosted a remarkable musical event conducted by the celebrated Israeli conductor Daniel Barenboim. This concert had the direct support of Egyptian culture minister Farouk Hosny, who is currently a candidate to be the next director-general of UNESCO. At the end of the event, those present, including a large part of the Egyptian elite, gave their guest a standing ovation, and during a press conference the world-famous conductor expressed his hope that Egyptians, Syrians, and others would visit Israel to express their points of view.

Although certain Egyptian intellectuals announced their rejection of this cultural exchange with Israel for reasons that are well known in the Arab world, others — we could say the majority — supported this event, justifying their support by saying that there is a large difference between Israeli artists and intellectuals who support peace in the Middle East, and those who promote war. For me, this is a debate that leads nowhere.

What is noteworthy about this event is that it follows criticism of the Egyptian response to the recent Israeli attack on Gaza. While the whole world was protesting this war, others were protesting the Egyptian regime in particular, due to its tacit support for the conflict in closing its border to the Palestinian people. Even though the Egyptian political class believes itself to be committed to peace in the region, and even though it invited an Israeli known for his commitment to peace to conduct a concert there, we mustn’t be fooled into believing that Hosni Mubarak is acting in good faith in regard to the Palestinian cause. Rather, there is a profound change underway in Egyptian politics, most likely due to self-interested calculations. I think it’s obvious that this political change would not be occurring without the emergence of new interests that have created the need for a revision of Egypt’s political strategy.

It is clear that the government of Hosni Mubarak is in conflict with the Muslim Brotherhood, which remains the principal counterweight to the power of his regime. Moreover, we can see in a glance that the Islamic government in Gaza scares the Egyptian state, because of its alliances — both ideological and otherwise — with the Muslim Brotherhood. It follows that the Israeli war on Gaza gave Mubarak the opportunity to strike a blow against Hamas, the friend of his enemy the Muslim Brotherhood. Moreover, Islamic movements throughout the region are an ongoing challenge to Arab leaders. In Egypt, Mubarak’s desire to transfer power to his son Gamal is well known, but without the help of the heavyweights of the region including Israel and the United States, this transfer could not happen peacefully. Thus it seems clear that Mubarak in his recent policies is trying to build international consent for the transfer of power to his son, since helping Israel or fighting Islamic movements builds his legitimacy in the eyes of the great world powers. Moreover, the Israeli security services remain the most powerful in the region, and certain politicians like to insist that the Israeli security services play an important role in keeping friendly Arab leaders in power, among them Mubarak.

I believe that the Barenboim concert is one aspect of this political strategy, namely an attempt to win global support for the transfer of power by showing a false face. It’s clear that a large part of the Egyptian cultural elite has expressed its strong support for Gamal Mubarak as their next president. For example, Adel Imam, Egypt’s best known actor, believes that Gamal Mubarak will be the best possible president for Egypt, after his father of course. In any case, the transfer of power in Egypt will be a test for promoters of democracy everywhere, whether in the Arab world or in the world as a whole, especially for President Barack Obama. Obama has promised a change in America, so let’s hope that this change will be reflected in a revision of American foreign policy. Instead of supporting these dictatorial leaders, America must give priority to democratic choices, because peace will never develop in an environment ruled by political systems from the Middle Ages.

It will be necessary sooner or later to normalize relations with Israel, so as to have neither permanent conflict nor permanent hate in the region. But before that, we must first protect ourselves against a new dictator. That’s where we should be directing our energies and our pens, rather than getting sidetracked from the real issue by insisting on an Israeli boycott. I wonder what the Arab cultural and political elite has done for the Palestinians, beyond insisting on an Israeli boycott and applauding their own leaders? A just peace in the Middle East cannot exist without Arab governments freely chosen by their people, so it’s in the interest of all who support the Palestinian cause to first demand a democratic transition, in Egypt and throughout the Arab world.

Circle of Deception

3 Replies

Our friend Doga gives us his latest report from the ground in Morocco.

For thirty years or more, with each new Moroccan government the same problems are discussed, with a bit of variation in style. Poverty, health care, unemployment—these have been the daily concerns of Moroccans for a long time. The fact that the same conversation keeps repeating itself without noticable results has brought frustration to the hearts of Moroccans, especially young people. The boycott of the legislative elections of 2007 is one sign of these frustrations.

Instead of falling into this trap ourselves by repeating the same old complaints, we should evolve our vision through new readings of the situation, and also change our form of protest. In my opinion, before criticizing the government and its officials, we need to take an objective look at the terrain on which the political game is played. The negative attributes of society such as corruption, abuse of power, and theft of public funds aren’t due to the bad behavior of individuals, so much as to a bad system of government. This is why these negative attributes, rather than being the cause, are the effect of a system of government that hasn’t changed since Morocco gained its independence. This is the vicious circle in which we are endlessly trapped.

It’s easy to see how the centralization of power, coupled with individual choices, gives us either obedient politicians ready to blindly applaud the Makhzen, or politicians excluded from power. Those who accept the political game as defined by the Makhzen lose their legitimacy in the eyes of the citizens, because when they make promises at election time which they know will be impossible to implement due to the Constitution and the way the political game is played, they are lying to Moroccans. If they were sincere, they would insist on constitutional reforms that adhere to global democratic norms, but instead we have a mediocre political game that thumbs its nose at Moroccans and their future. We have political parties that reassure us that the poverty crisis is easing so long as they are in government, but as soon as they are out of power for even a few months, their analysis reverses itself, and poverty is getting worse again!

It’s also easy to see how the economic monopoly of the rich, and the non-distribution of wealth, block the socio-economic development of society by obliging people to depend on intermediaries to advance their interests and those of their families. Those intermediaries are often the type of politician already mentioned, which is why we can observe small groupings in society that share reciprocal interests outside the public interest, while the majority of the population remains marginalized.

Let’s suppose that I’m a nihilist as the Makhzen wants to call me, even though I’m just a simple citizen who is expressing himself spontaneously. Does this mean that the international agencies are nihilistic as well, whose reports rank Morocco in a shameful position in all areas of development? We are badly in need of self-criticism and acknowledgement that the system itself is corrupt. If the authorities attack an article that says something about the Makhzen, for example, claiming that its author has taken improper advantage of the freedom of expression he was given, this shows that the Makhzen isn’t protecting people’s natural and international rights, but rather treating them as handouts like it does in politics and the economy! So it isn’t surprising to see institutions like education and public health go from one crisis to the next, when the people who are responsible for the crisis in the first place are later put in charge of proposing solutions.

Along with all this, there is a parallel policy of manufacturing consent, in which the majority of intellectuals and the press participate to one degree or another. The intellectuals are genuinely isolated from the concerns of the people. We only hear from them when it’s a question of criticizing the Islamists, who tend to be opponents of the Makhzen. The majority of the press isn’t much better. They improve upon the intellectuals by reporting on demonstrations held by unions or activist groups, or by expressing solidarity with unemployed college graduates assaulted by the Makhzen. It isn’t hard to find criticism in our press of the workings of government and its institutions. We can read this type of crtitcism here and there, because people need to hear it and experience a bit of solidarity, even though nothing fundamental will change. It lets the crowd breathe a little. Still, these criticisms don’t go to the root of the matter, nor do they bother to fill in the gaps in our understanding or provide a positive critique.

What they do is repeat the discourse of the Makhzen. Even in the best case, I would say that the majority of the press closely follows the official line. With headlines like “Morocco in Motion,” “Morocco in Development,” “Democratic Transition,” “National Initiative for Human Development” and “The Just State,” we might be excused for believing that Morocco will soon surpass Sweden. But these are just expressions for manipulating popular sentiment. Saying “Democratic Transition” without mentioning the need for constitutional reforms, or saying “The Just State” without mentioning the need for an independent judiciary, does nothing but give the empty impression that things are better now than they once were.

Involuntarily

3 Replies

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.

What the Nihilists Think

9 Replies

Morocco will hold parliamentary elections on September 7. In a recent speech to the nation, King Mohammed VI accused those who feel the elections are meaningless of being “nihilists.” In this guest post, Doga defends his own decision not to vote, and calls for constitutional reform as an essential step toward democracy.

The goal of elections has always been to form a strong government that is capable of administering public affairs in complete transparency, making it responsible to the people who will examine its performance and in the end hold it accountable. Yet such a strong government cannot exist under the Moroccan Constitution, because all powers are concentrated in the king’s hands, giving him the authority to name the Prime Minister as well as all the other components of government, and even to dissolve the Parliament at any time to form another. So there is no point in speaking of the importance of elections, and the Moroccan people understand that. The embarassingly low number of Moroccans registered to vote is the best demonstration of how the elections are a mirage for them. That is why constitutional reforms are necessary as a starting point and basic requirement of the democratic transition that the State has declared its willingness to achieve.

Rather than speak of the importance of constitutional reforms, the political elite has chosen to run a publicity campaign in the media (which were part of the Ministry of the Interior not long ago) to give people an illusory image of the importance of these elections. Or they tell us they are building a transparent process to ensure that candidates play by the rules. But why bother? Even once they are elected, our representatives will do little more than chase after royal initiatives, when there are any, or take advantage of the poor by building huge villas at the expense of their futures. Of course transparent elections are a good thing, but only constitutional reform can free us from the popular attitude that our friend eatbees has described as, “Let’s all march behind our glorious leader.” Only then will we be able to elect deputies to the National Assembly who can guarantee a balance of power in this country. Until now we have not been able to imagine the program of any independent political party being supported or taken seriously in Morocco!

These are the reasons why participation in these elections is pointless, so long as the programs to be followed once they are over are scripted by the Makhzen, which excludes the will of the people in the same way it always has. So why have elections, political programs and parties? Why even have a Parliament or a government! The only party that has decided to boycott the elections is Annahj Addimocrati (The Democratic Path) which offers this statement on their website.

    The Parliament resulting from these legislative elections will be no different from its predecessors regarding the function assigned to it, namely to be a tool in the hands and at the service of the Makhzen and its loyal ally the dominant coalition, allowing them in this way to legitimise their dictatorship and reinforce its continuation.

It goes on to say:

    The future Parliament will not be able to concretize your desire for national liberation and democratic construction, regardless of the results of the legislative elections, because it is under orders from the Palace, to which the Constitution confers full powers for determining the objectives and policies of the State, as well as control over the instruments of their execution: territorial administration (Walis, Governors, Caids…), the military, security and judicial apparatus, and diverse public offices and institutions.

The political elite talks about democratic transition but says nothing about constitutional reform. It talks about fighting poverty but says nothing about how the nation’s wealth is distributed. It talks about a just State when we don’t yet have an independent judicial system. In my opinion, talking about a thing and its contradiction at the same time automatically makes a person a hypocrite. It’s no wonder that the Moroccan people are shunning these elections, because on a practical level we can see there is no desire for change.

— • —

eatbees here, continuing with my own comments….

A recent article from the French news source Rue89 states that only 1.3 million Moroccans in a nation of 30 million are registered to vote in this year’s elections, and cites a poll showing that 73% of Moroccans are “indifferent” to the results. The whole article is worth reading, but the most interesting part is that it quotes the views of ordinary Moroccans.

Rachid, 33, works in a sandwich shop and a clothing boutique. He says, “I’ve never voted, because none of those guys has ever done anything for me. My preoccupation is to earn enough money to lead a normal life. I don’t have the time to listen to them talk. I’m sure of one thing, we have a king and he’s the one who decides.”

Bouchra, 33, works for a dance company. She says, “It’s a political game. They talk to us about diversity to prove to us that Morocco is moving toward democracy [but] the road to democracy is nothing but show. Essaouira is beautiful on the surface, but when you enter the medina where Moroccans go, you encounter piles of trash, it’s pathetic. It’s the surface image that counts, nothing more. The king will continue to lead the country and lay out the direction to follow.”

Amal Tamar is an actress. She will vote, but says, “People no longer trust the political class. They’ve promised us so many things that have never arrived. Moroccans are fleeing the public schools that are inadequately funded. Education is a right from which each citizen should benefit without any special advantage. But we’re far from that.” Her husband adds, “If I could, I would call on Moroccans not to vote.”

A more optimistic view is offered by a group of young Moroccans who have created a new website, www.intikhabat2007.com, that invites its readers to send in photos of themselves with a brief written comment about the elections. When they contacted me for help publicizing their project, they described the purpose of the site this way:

    We young Moroccans have very few spaces in the political sphere where we can truly express ourselves… but the key is to be creative and to come up with innovative channels to widen or even create those spaces from scratch… if this project reaches a certain critical mass, it might contribute, albeit modestly, to carry over certain voices and concerns.

The site went online just a week before election day, so it’s late getting started, but I hope it keeps going once the elections are over. If Doga is right, voting alone won’t change anything, because the system is rigged to serve a permanent political elite. But I think the people who created this project are right too. Young Moroccans need ways to express their political views without being filtered through the established channels, which are often indifferent to young people’s concerns.

Still, sounding off on the internet is not enough. Idealism needs to be put to work in the community. I hope it will translate into political action, such as working with local associations, writing letters, meeting with public officials, and putting pressure on institutions to continue on the road of openness and reform. A system that is used to using intimidation to guarantee public apathy will only transform itself once people show they are no longer intimidated. Egypt has a blend of internet activism and direct action that has succeeded at times in challenging the old ways. It would be great to see the same thing happen in Morocco.

Prison of Liberty

19 Replies

This is a guest post by my friend Doga, in which he responds to the controversy surrounding a recent editorial by Ahmed Reda Benchemsi, which was critical of a speech by King Mohammed VI of Morocco.

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.

“If Not Now, When?”

2 Replies

Doga is back! It’s been a while, but I’ve managed to get my friend from Fez to write about how he sees the current political situation in Morocco. I told him that many Moroccan bloggers are uneasy with the thought of a PJD victory in this year’s elections because they are afraid it will limit their freedoms. Some, such as BO18 in this post, have gone so far as to wonder whether Morocco is ready for democracy at all. Doga responds that the political atmosphere is so stifling in Morocco that the first priority is to force open the debate. He sees a PJD victory as the best way to do that. For him, this is not so much an endorsement of the PJD, as an indictment of politics as usual. In this article he avoids any discussion of political parties, instead taking the broad view to answer those who say “Morocco isn’t ready” or “We need to go slow.” His title is borrowed from the Jewish moral philosopher Hillel.

— • —

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.

Political Paralysis in Morocco

3 Replies

This is the second article by Doga, a young Moroccan from Fez. His first post about the marginalization of Moroccan youth can be found here.

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.