Skip to content

Makhzenite infighting in Morocco

May 30, 2009
Fouad Ali el-Himma, 2007

Fouad Ali el-Himma, 2007

I’m not sure exactly what, but something quite important may be going on in Morocco, which has just entered into a mild parliamentary crisis.  Certainly, King Mohammed VI still controls all important levers of power, whatever the talk of constitutional monarchy, and elected politicians are only as powerful as he allows them to be. But there’s always room for some elite infighting in the public space that is accorded by the king — and this time around, it seems to be taking place in an unusually public fashion.

Ever since the king’s right-hand man, Fouad Ali el-Himma, left his position to go into parliamentary politics, it has been generally understood that he will henceforth be winning elections for the palace. To this end, he has set up a political party, the Parti authenticité et modernité or PAM — formally, he’s just a humble board member respecting the chairmanship of Mohamed Cheikh Biadillah (interestingly, a Sahrawi), but no one doubts that he is in reality the driving force behind the party. PAM was created by the merger of his followers with a number of small parties, and by the defection (“nomadism”) of other parliamentarians to his party. This latter phenomenon is not new to Moroccan politics, where the monarch has always had one or more loyal “palace parties” to do his bidding. These are often constituted around particular traditionalist constituencies (such as the rural/Berber Mouvement populaire), or by people elected as pro-regime “independents”, who are generally local strongmen, landowners, ex-dissidents, tribal leaders, businessmen, etc (el-Himma himself was elected as an independent in 2007 before creating PAM).

This is not some great innovation, of course, or even particular to Morocco. It’s an extension into parliamentary life of the monarchy’s traditional methods of cooptation, which buys local leaders into the Makhzen system, dragging their dependent constituencies behind them, and so ensures royal control with a minimum of open top-down coercion. In the exemplary case of el-Himma, him being seen as so close to the king, he had no problem getting elected at all: by supporting him, his district bet on what they knew was a winning horse, hoping to secure benefits for themselves and their communities in return. And that’s how it works most everywhere, in the countryside at least.

In the case of PAM, it would seem that the ruling elite has for some reason decided that a reshaping of the political landscape is needed. This could be related to, as many speculate, a power struggle, in which el-Himma brings his own patronage power to bear on the parliamentary landscape, to push out other players. On the other hand, there’s also the fact that Moroccan political life has changed quite a bit since Mohammed VI took power in 1999. While the parliament is still mostly a talking-shop, the king and his circle may well see the need to preemptively establish a stronger footing under one of their own, before some decision-making is, perhaps, allowed to filter over into party-politics.

It’s not uncontroversial, however, what el-Himma is doing. Those pro-regime parties that are bleeding opportunistic members to PAM are understandably concerned, and more principled members of the opposition — generally found outside of parliament, or even outside of party politics, such as in the rather lively print press; but also in the Islamist PJD and some other parties — condemn the whole affair as a way of undermining parliament. Which, of course, it is. But who cares about those people anyway? To get to play power politics, you need to be able to bet some power.

A more unexpected and worrying roadbump was when a the Interior Ministry, in mid-May, apparently notified a government meeting that political “nomadism” in the run-up to the local elections (June 12) should be considered illegal, as per §5 of the law on political parties. This formally affected all party-switchers, but in practice, it hit PAM much harder than any other group, since the party was founded recently, and wholly on a basis of on elite defections. Confusion ensued, but when the state news agency published a PAM statement contesting the new rule, it was immediately followed by a denial by the Interior Ministry that any such draft had even existed. All fine and well, then. But when a Marrakech Interior Ministry office then refused the candidacy of a PAM member who had defected from another party, crisis again erupted.  While most other parties kept a pointed silence, PAM flew into a rage, declaring §5 to be anti-constitutional, and threatening that it could withdraw support from Istiqlali PM Abbas el-Fassi‘s government which — precisely because of the ruling-party defections to PAM — lacks a parliamentary majority of its own. (PAM now controls 89 out of 325 seats.) Meanwhile, adminstrative instances in Rabat and Tangiers intervened to annul the Marrakech decision, prompting celebratory statements from the PAM, but Interior Minister Benmoussa insisted on the right of local authorities to reject candidates according to the law, trying, not very convincingly, to portray the whole thing as a marginal non-event.

When the minister seemingly refused to budge, PAM put its threat into action. It has now withdrawn all support from the el-Fassi government. PAM chairman Biadillah clarifies matters by spelling out that his party now “positions itself within the opposition”. That means that the government lacks majority support, but, as I understand it, it does not mean that el-Fassi’s cabinet automatically falls. For that to happen, PAM needs to assemble enough parliamentarians to actively vote it down, and it remains to be seen if they can do that. With royal protégé/enforcer Fouad Ali el-Himma’s political vehicle now officially in opposition, what, one might legitimately ask, what will His Majesty do to help him?

Not much, apparently. Here today’s top news item on the state agency’s website, MAP:

King Mohammed VI reiterates trust in Premier and government

Rabat – King Mohammed VI reiterated instructions to hold the upcoming local elections in total transparency and respect of the Law .

During a phone call from his Paris residence with Premier, Abbas El Fassi, the monarch reiterated trust in El Fassi and the government to pursue and intensify their efforts aimed at carrying out the reforms and large-scale projects, and serving the higher interests of the Nation and citizens under the instruction of King Mohammed VI.

For the life of me I can’t figure out where this is headed, but things are getting really interesting.

Related: Recent power struggles in the Saharan CORCAS.

17 Comments leave one →
  1. Laroussi permalink
    May 31, 2009 07:57

    “For the life of me I can’t figure out where this is headed, but things are getting really interesting.”

    What is happening is that with a ruler that is not very interested in politics sooner or later there will be a void of power. MVI is simply not in control the way that his father was, and what more is he doesn’t even try very hard it seems.

    Now, what this current affair will lead to might be fun to watch for politically interested but unfortunately nothing indicates that it will improve matters for everyday Moroccans or Saharawis or substantially change the way that the country is ruled. It’s an internal power struggle inside the Makhzen. Nothing more.

    Even a totalitarian society like Morocco has had its share of transparency and it is not surprising that even political disputes are dealt with more openly, but with no substantial changes in the end. It might be exciting for the novelty of things to start with. But it’s nothing more than a political reality-show in the media. It won’t rock the boat. Morocco remains a totalitarian monarchy/dictatorship with a quasi parliament.

    Now about the quarrel:

    In February 2006 the benevolent Moroccan majesty, Mohammed VI aka “the big Dude”, decided through his government and parliament on a new law on political parties, law nr 36-04.

    Article 5 of mentioned law stipulates that members of the Moroccan parliament that have been elected to one of its two chambers for a certain party can not change their membership to another party before the end of their mandate or before a date set by decree.

    “le titulaire d’un mandat électoral en cours au sein de l’une des deux chambres du Parlement, élu sur accréditation d’un parti politique en activité, ne peut adhérer à un autre parti politique qu’au terme de son mandat ou à la date du décret fixant”

    Surely PAM and Fouad Ali el-Himma were not unaware of this? Information about the new law was even available at the official Moroccan election site even before the elections in 2007.

    All this seems to be much ado about nothing…

  2. May 31, 2009 16:07

    Even a totalitarian society like Morocco has had its share of transparency and it is not surprising that even political disputes are dealt with more openly, but with no substantial changes in the end.

    First, I wouldn’t use the term totalitarian, but that’s not the point. My point is that if the law is strictly applied counter to the interest of PAM, it would seem to me that that is change of a kind. Whether it’s in the end for good or bad, and why it’s really happening, is for wiser people than me to figure out, but I for one wasn’t expecting to see the state trip up el-Himma’s political project like this.

  3. Laroussi permalink
    May 31, 2009 18:43

    Well, I think totalitarian fits very well as a description of a hierarchic society with an autocratic leader, like Morocco. But maybe you would prefer authoritarian?

    However, if a man like Fouad Ali el-Himma is interested in fighting for power in a police state like Morocco, it seems wise to learn the rules of the game before for example setting up… a new political party.

    Now Morocco is not a state where the rule of law is very strong, to say the least, but if laws exist that might be used to trap you in your quest for power you should be sure that they will be used against you sooner or later.

    Until very recently article 5 in the law on political parties was not used at all, hence the manoeuvres of Fouad Ali el-Himma in the Moroccan parliament. No? Now the ministry of interior takes down the law from the dusty shelves. Surprise? I don’t think so. Curious? Yes. Like the first minutes of a new reality-show.

    I wasn’t expecting to see the state trip up el-Himma’s political project like this either. But surprised? No.

    By the way. Freedom of press and expression has declined over the last years in Morocco according to several international NGOs like Amnesty, HRW, Reporters Without Borders and Freedom House. Were you expecting that? I hope not. Surprised?

  4. May 31, 2009 19:58

    Authoritarian is fine, or dictatorship, or whatever you like, but “totalitarian”, for me, carries a meaning of wanting to regulate, politicize and reshape life in every aspect, à la the Soviet Union. The kings of Morocco seem to be just fine with people going about their daily life and sticking to their traditions, as long as they get to decide on matters of state. But I won’t quibble about terminology.

    I’m not sure what your argument is about Article 5. I am surprised, because I had got the impression that the PAM thing was simply rolling ahead as planned. But perhaps not? In fact, from what I’ve read, much of the Moroccan press also seems surprised and curious about it.

    The press freedom decline: not really surprised at there being some sort of counter-reaction after earlier press liberalizations, no, but perhaps at the clumsy pushback — the huge sums of damages awarded, etc.

  5. stamboul permalink
    June 1, 2009 10:04

    “I am surprised, because I had got the impression that the PAM thing was simply rolling ahead as planned. ”

    Just speculation, but one of the traditional interests of the monarchy has been to keep parliament divided and prevent any one party from gaining too much power and influence. In recent years parties rarely controlled much more than 1/10th of parliamentary seats. Now PAM seems to control more than a quarter, and to be on a roll. It was undoubtedly supposed to be the vanguard for the monarchy in parliament but possibly not meant to crushingly dominate (by traditional Moroccan standards) Moroccan politics. Could this be an attempt to stop it getting too big for its britches?

  6. June 1, 2009 14:21

    Sounds very plausible to me, but I still think it is a strange way of doing it. Surely some neater arrangement could have been worked out, if the king and el-Himma are still on such good terms? And if the party is not supposed to overshadow its competitors (mostly PJD, I suppose), then what was the point of creating it? Splintered loyal opposition they had before, so that is all PAM was intended to be, then it’s more about a changing of the guard. Then again, I have no better theory.

  7. Laroussi permalink
    June 3, 2009 07:16

    “I’m not sure what your argument is about Article 5.”

    My argument is that Fouad Ali El Himma must have known about Article 5 already when he set about his plan to create a new political party. Now why would he ignore that?

    On the other hand, why did everyone else also ignore this paragraph until now? It is a bit surprising that the king’s government and his political advisers let things go this far before they acted. But then again, MVI has not at all the same political interest as his father which he also has shown several times before.

    Maybe there’s something to the analysis of Stamboul, that the monarchy wanted PAM as a force to divide the parliament but then things got out of hand. In any case, I still think this at the large is a no-event, part of a political reality show or a political cat-fight if you like. But then again I might be wrong.

    All in all this charade is, if anything, a sign of that the desired appearance of important changes is mainly just an illusion, like what has happened with free speech and the press code in the enchanting kingdom. You might think that you are allowed to actually rock the boat, and you might even be allowed from time to time to talk about doing so, but when you actually try – the Empire strikes back. ;)

    Here is by the way a good version in French, for those interested in that language, of the above events from Le Journal Hebdo.

    However, Le Hebdo says more or less the same as Alle already has written here.

  8. ibnkafka permalink*
    June 4, 2009 14:39

    I think it would be wrong to think that such things are planned in detail behind a desk at the cabinet royal. The history of internicine competition in between the partis administratifs is quite long, from Aherdane’s MP to Maati Bouabid’s UC and including Ahmed Osman’s RNI and Ahmed Reda Guedira’s FDIC.

    As for the PAM, what might have seemed like a good idea in 2007 might not seem so brilliant in 2009, as PAM is too closely associated with the King in public opinion as well as creating bad feelings among the partis administratifs – I wonder whether the King does not see the USFP as a more useful pawn. The makhzen is composed of different circles of influence, and the institutions at its service have their own logic – one should not draw the conclusion that the ministry of interior would necessarily be any courtisan’s errand boy, at least not in the scale expected by Fouad Ali El Himma.

  9. June 7, 2009 21:10

    One theory about the PAM’s purpose is that it is seeking to restructure the political landscape by absorbing existing “administrative parties” (RNI, MP, etc.) and give them a centrist, pro-monarchy direction. It is also trying to shake up the scene to hurry the ousting of the elderly leaders of the “historic parties” (USFP, the now completely makhzenified Istiqlal, PPS) and restore credibility. The monarchy does not care about which parties govern, even the PJD. It cares that there is a balance in the political landscape and no vacuum – this is why the king has repeatedlu spoken out against ineffective parties. The current vacuum (basically the PJD is the only strong party) discredits politics and the illusion of continuous reform the monarchy has banked on. In this case, the fight between the Ministry of Interior (the day-to-day ruler of Morocco and heart of the Makhzen) and the PAM is tactical, perhaps representing resistance of the established parties (apart from PJD) against the PAM’s bid for hegemony. But this remains an inter-elite fight, and even if Abbas al-Fassi is ousted as some expect a new government will not take a sudden new direction.

    • June 7, 2009 21:13

      I should add that the real test would be whether the PAM might take key portfolios away from royal favorites such as the quite competent Nizar Baraka, Ghellab, a-Hijra etc.

Trackbacks

  1. La Kabylie, Bengurion Taghine les juifs marocains et Israël – ou comment donner une mauvaise réputation aux théories de la conspiration « Ibn Kafka’s obiter dicta – divagations d’un juriste marocain en liberté surveillée
  2. Carnegie on Moroccan local elections « Maghreb Politics Review
  3. Makhzenite infighting in Morocco « Maghreb Politics Review | The Arabist
  4. More on the Moroccan local elections « Maghreb Politics Review
  5. Moroccan local elections: the results « Maghreb Politics Review
  6. Welcome | Project on Middle East Democracy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.