In wartime, Moroccans become experts in warfare. Like other peoples captivated by football, they also suddenly change from mere spectators or even referees, to champions in hypocrisy and the art of scoring virtual goals against their adversaries. This time, however, they became experts in constitutional law. In this context, constitutional reforms preoccupying the public can be credited of having taken a large number of Moroccans to college auditoriums, where they give lessons or receive them in great passion.
Perhaps this was the first lesson in democracy to impose itself on everyone. In the sixties, a given old woman would be asked whether the constitution she was asked to vote in favor, was angelic or devilish. But now, things have evolved to such an extent that the debate about the monarchy involves such concepts as parliamentary, constitutional or executive monarchies. Talking about a monarchy that reigns but doesn’t rule, no longer leads to prison, just like publicly talking about removing some powers from the monarchy has become nothing more than a matter of opinion, while both conservative and modernist voices call for the preservation of this institution, based on the premise that it is a guarantor of unity and continuation.
Five constitutions had organized the relationships between institutions and legislative, governmental and judiciary branches, with ensuing stances on them taken by the various political factions, who were divided into supporters and opponents (except the amended constitution of 1996 which enjoyed near unanimous support, allowing the tenets of the political transfer of power to be established on solid grounds). Among all these, the current debate regarding the upcoming constitutional reforms represents the first-of-its-kind experience, in that it will hold a vote on all items before proposing the bill.
It seems that this discussion purports eliminating the idea of an imposed constitution. And even though the committees studying the proposed amendments and their legal and political ramifications include carefully selected jurists and legal experts, care was taken to put in place mechanisms of a political nature to scrutinize the constitutional propositions. Such mechanisms comprise political leaders from both the opposition and loyalist camp. This has helped guarantee a constitutive aspect to passing a bill that achieves near consensus, yet without abolishing the right to boycott it or criticize it, should some parties take such a stance, whether stemming from their interpretation of the bill or for any other considerations.
What matters most here is that the debate regarding constitutional clauses has moved away from judiciary and political forums, and became a part of public discourse. In truth, this is the best manner to enhance democratic participation. During more than one electoral round, political elites became aware that voter apathy had been on the increase. Despite the fact that elections were somewhat fair and the government was neutral, apart from the criticisms made against using money to influence voters, it was not understood why elections were met with such indifference especially as only one third of the number of registered voters voted in those elections.
Some circles took that as a negative sign that demonstrated the faltering role of traditional parties in mobilizing and attracting elites. Others linked this trend to a growing lack of trust, while it was clear that betting on ameliorating voter participation, regardless of who gains their trust, is the essence of the democratic path. This path should otherwise guarantee participation, wherein the people rule the people through the people, without alienation or marginalization.
However, the best approach to contain democratic wagers lies in promoting the principle that voting constitutes an instrument of change, and that going to the ballots is tantamount to paying tax and performing a national duty. However, this can only be achieved by reaping fruits from the democratic process, i.e. when the latter is translated into political, economic, social and cultural benefits, benefits that can be assessed from the democracy of the neighborhood or the remote town, all the way to the democracy practiced in the Center in Parliament.
Those involved in building democratic traditions have come a long way, nay, have overcome long struggles and battles. These individuals did not champion democracy as a consumer commodity. Instead, they started out from scratch. There is thus no harm in the Moroccans debating their proposed constitution, with the hope that it will be more modern and rational, and that it will bring about a better sense of equilibrium between authorities and jurisdictions.
Perhaps this was the first lesson in democracy to impose itself on everyone. In the sixties, a given old woman would be asked whether the constitution she was asked to vote in favor, was angelic or devilish. But now, things have evolved to such an extent that the debate about the monarchy involves such concepts as parliamentary, constitutional or executive monarchies. Talking about a monarchy that reigns but doesn’t rule, no longer leads to prison, just like publicly talking about removing some powers from the monarchy has become nothing more than a matter of opinion, while both conservative and modernist voices call for the preservation of this institution, based on the premise that it is a guarantor of unity and continuation.
Five constitutions had organized the relationships between institutions and legislative, governmental and judiciary branches, with ensuing stances on them taken by the various political factions, who were divided into supporters and opponents (except the amended constitution of 1996 which enjoyed near unanimous support, allowing the tenets of the political transfer of power to be established on solid grounds). Among all these, the current debate regarding the upcoming constitutional reforms represents the first-of-its-kind experience, in that it will hold a vote on all items before proposing the bill.
It seems that this discussion purports eliminating the idea of an imposed constitution. And even though the committees studying the proposed amendments and their legal and political ramifications include carefully selected jurists and legal experts, care was taken to put in place mechanisms of a political nature to scrutinize the constitutional propositions. Such mechanisms comprise political leaders from both the opposition and loyalist camp. This has helped guarantee a constitutive aspect to passing a bill that achieves near consensus, yet without abolishing the right to boycott it or criticize it, should some parties take such a stance, whether stemming from their interpretation of the bill or for any other considerations.
What matters most here is that the debate regarding constitutional clauses has moved away from judiciary and political forums, and became a part of public discourse. In truth, this is the best manner to enhance democratic participation. During more than one electoral round, political elites became aware that voter apathy had been on the increase. Despite the fact that elections were somewhat fair and the government was neutral, apart from the criticisms made against using money to influence voters, it was not understood why elections were met with such indifference especially as only one third of the number of registered voters voted in those elections.
Some circles took that as a negative sign that demonstrated the faltering role of traditional parties in mobilizing and attracting elites. Others linked this trend to a growing lack of trust, while it was clear that betting on ameliorating voter participation, regardless of who gains their trust, is the essence of the democratic path. This path should otherwise guarantee participation, wherein the people rule the people through the people, without alienation or marginalization.
However, the best approach to contain democratic wagers lies in promoting the principle that voting constitutes an instrument of change, and that going to the ballots is tantamount to paying tax and performing a national duty. However, this can only be achieved by reaping fruits from the democratic process, i.e. when the latter is translated into political, economic, social and cultural benefits, benefits that can be assessed from the democracy of the neighborhood or the remote town, all the way to the democracy practiced in the Center in Parliament.
Those involved in building democratic traditions have come a long way, nay, have overcome long struggles and battles. These individuals did not champion democracy as a consumer commodity. Instead, they started out from scratch. There is thus no harm in the Moroccans debating their proposed constitution, with the hope that it will be more modern and rational, and that it will bring about a better sense of equilibrium between authorities and jurisdictions.
No comments:
Post a Comment