The Myth of Moroccan Democracy
Shadi Hamid and I have a piece out at The American Prospect today on the recent Moroccan elections and, more broadly, about American democracy-promotion. We note that while Morocco’s King Mohammed VI has been held up as an example of an “enlightened monarch” leading his country towards economic and political progress, the reality on the ground is much different. Here’s a teaser:
In 2004-5, with landmark elections in Iraq, Lebanon, and Egypt, observers heralded what would come to be known as the “Arab Spring.” Even as spring turned to winter, and hopes of a democratic transformation dimmed, Morocco appeared a lone bright spot in a region once again losing its way.
King Mohammed VI, Western-educated and refined, was a visionary, American officials believed, and was boldly moving his country toward economic and political progress. In a 2006 trip to Casablanca, Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes called Morocco an “important model for the wider region” and a country “at the forefront” of political reform. Since 2004, the U.S. has rewarded Morocco by tripling economic aid. On Aug. 31, in a move that received little fanfare at home, the United States agreed to grant Morocco $700 million over five years through the Millennium Challenge Account, one of the last remaining relics of the Bush administration’s “freedom agenda.”
But on the ground is a different reality, one which U.S. policymakers are loathe to admit.
3 Responses to “The Myth of Moroccan Democracy”
Why this attitude toward Morocco, or toward Egypt, or toward Saudi Arabia, or toward Pakistan?
If the government falls, of course, but even if any criticism by us were anticipated to weaken it, we must ask (and worry), What is the likely result? What are the alternatives? (Hint: Worse.)
My mother lives 2/3rds of the year in Morrocco, but I haven’t had a chance to visit her there yet.
I was wondering if creating ostensibly democratic institutions and then slowly ceding more responsibility to them might in fact be a better way to go about things than trying to create a parliament who has to handle everything at once. Transitions from dictatorships to full, true democracy in only one or two steps has almost always resulted in collapse. See the French revolution, current Iraq, and Russia as examples.
Of course, the article’s point might be that the king has shown no genuine desire to slowly move control from one institution to another, and that would be a problem.
Since the election of Hamas,you’d think we would be cautious about what kind of move toward democracy we advocate.
Elections per se seem to have little meaning in a society with no experience with the responsibility of governing. With a king holding all the power, Moroccans may be better off not getting too much responsibility at onece.
With talk about regionalization in Iraq, I’ve been wondering if it’s not better to start with regional councils and then more slowly up the food chain.
We can’t tell other countries how to organize or re-organize their governments, however, and it might just be better to push less and observe more.
It’s interesting how decentralization is taking effect in China in the legal system. Judges go to localities to preside over cases, with local lawyers represeting clients. It’s one way to complain to the government, and they seem to use court occasions to remosntrate about a host of problems.
I’m wondering if the small scale local communities aren’t the best venue to practice participation. Corruption always seems to creep in, though. so I’m not sure about the best way to transform societies.
I’m only sure of tow things: 1) it should never be sudden, and 2) it should be tailored to the culture..