On the relationship between power, money and political representation

The debate returned violently about the serious economic and political damage caused by the close and ambiguous relationship between wealth and power in Morocco. About half of those listed as billionaires by Forbes over the past few years are directly involved in high-ranking government. Those people who therefore make a strong contribution to the central and strategic economic decision can only make decisions that go in the direction of the interests of their companies and the development of their wealth. They are businessmen, so they can not see in the pursuit of politics a volunteer job or a hobby that could harm their interests. They are well aware that politics is an activity that helps facilitate their investments and revive their profits. If we add to this that the nature of the political economy in Morocco is rentier, we will not only understand the boycott movement that started about two months ago in Morocco, but also the return of the strong debate it provoked – the boycott – on the legitimacy of the relationship between power and money.
As happened during the Moroccan spring of 2011, most tendencies of public opinion took part in the discussion, including the left, both parliamentary and radical, as well as the Islamic movement, whether those close to the Justice and Development Party of Justice and Charity Group. The Unaffiliated Citizens, representing the majority of social networking activists, enthusiastically participated in the debate and at least dozens of them even posted videos condemning the illegal association between power and wealth. Many of these videos were produced by activists personally or as part of associations.
National political leaders also took part in the debate. This is how the newspapers quoted Nabila Munib, secretary general of the United Socialist, as calling for “an end to the illegal marriage between the economic and political authorities”. It also called for the resignation of major economic actors from politics and “to stop the flourishing of economic rents and the unfair distribution of wealth controlled by certain families.” In the same statement, which was followed by about one hundred and fifty thousand visitors to the blue space, the left-wing leadership confirmed that “the authoritarian regime has eluded us since independence,” as it refuses to start necessary and urgent reforms such as the separation . of powers. Ms Mounib described the regime as “a deadlock”, a sponsor of corruption and rentierism, hampering Morocco’s progress towards a modern democratic society and a parliamentary monarchy.
Among the issues related to the topic discussed by public opinion are the damage to economic competitiveness and the consent of most businessmen from the political influence of each other, and they are some who have the privileged relationships they have and their access to decision-making circles, to acquire privileges that cannot be acquired by the independent investor. Sometimes, with this very rich couple, it comes down to the enactment of customary laws, the validity of which may only last as long as its beneficial purpose lasts.
On the occasion of the election of a new president for the Patrona, some debaters pointed out that authoritarian regimes generally refuse to deal in a serious and democratic way with strongly representative bodies, including trade unions of businessmen and women. The General Confederation of Moroccan Enterprises was thus subjected to terrible pressure which almost overwhelmed him in the mid-1990s when he refused guardianship and insisted on defending businessmen regardless of the nature of the relationship between them and the regime. The same contracting association was again put under pressure in the early 2000s to lose much of its independence, as the political authority, sometimes blatantly, became involved in choosing who would lead the Patrona. The latter was also politically oriented to oppose the government of Abdelilah Benkirane, despite the fact that the economic decisions of his government mostly went in the direction of the interests of investors. The powerlessness of the powerful representative bodies and personalities is reflected in the push of Mr. Salah El-Din Mezouar, who was never a businessman but rather a politician near the palace, after the presidency of the General Confederation of Moroccan Enterprises. Thus a politician, who has no money, leads the men of money and business.
At the same time, a businessman, Mr. Akhannouch, to, under the pressure of the same higher authorities, lead the class of politicians, waiting for him to lead the people in the coming elections, and the people have no money. This glaring and hilarious contrast is an indication of the representative phobia that the Moroccan government suffers from. Getting rid of Benkirane as prime minister despite the arrival of the party he leads first in the legislative elections was also caused by the great representation the man enjoyed inside and outside his party. But we may ask what is the cause of this phobia? We believe that its main reason is the bargaining power that those with strong representation towards the system have, whether they are against the system or just enjoy relative independence from it. The bargaining power – constitutionally and theoretically supported – that the independent mediators derive from the bases they elect, whether in government, parliament, political or civil society, arouses the anger of the decision-making elite. This is because this elite knows that it has no electoral legitimacy and that if it abandons authoritarian logic, it will eventually find itself in a new system that makes democratic logic its religion and serves the public interest to its purpose. This reduces the importance of the little controlling money and decision making.

A writer from Morocco

Leave a Comment