It's been a couple days since Morocco's big demonstrations, and there's good reason why I decided to go to - and post about - Tangier and Chefchaouen rather than discuss Morocco's political climate the past few days. Actually, there's been a couple reasons. First, from my perspective in the nation's capital, there just hasn't been anything similar to the rest of the Middle East going on here. Second, the one event that did happen (the 20 February Demonstrations) wasn't worth getting stirred up about.
But some time's passed, I walked around today, talked to some locals and I feel like discussing what I've seen and read about the political situation here. Before I do though, I just want to add that every country in the Middle East (or the parts I've seen of it) is different due to numerous factors. Most times, these matters differ from what we see in the U.S.; sometimes they're the same. And other times, the least of these factors is actually the guy sitting at the head of the table.
As you may know, since Tunisia cleared the head of its table, pretty much every Arab country except some gulf states has conducted newsworthy demonstrations demanding either the removal of leadership, sweeping reforms within their governments, or both. Tunisia and Egypt got what they wanted, and others may be on their way.
Morocco, however, will not be one of them. Despite not having a unified goal, organizers tried to get some specified demands answered but ultimately didn't have their hearts in it during their "big" nation-wide demonstrations on February 20th. Now, after a lackluster showing, I believe that the "movement" in Morocco is done - finished (or more accurately, never started). In my opinion (and it's still pretty raw), the 20 February demonstrations were a dip-the-toe-in-the-water moment designed to test the nation's resolve for change. Given the underwhelming numbers of participants, that water appears to be pretty cool. Estimates have varied as to how cool though.
The Washington Post reported a "weak turnout" of about 8,000 people. A little later, Al-Jazeera (Arabic) put the number of nation-wide demonstraters above 35,000 but noted the peaceful atmosphere. Today, my copy of the Rabat circular called it 37,000. Still, the population of the country sits around 35 million and the rally was held on a weekend. Quick math tells me only about .1% of the population participated at a convenient time.
On top of the low numbers, the flavor of the demonstrations differed from the others. Whereas demonstrations in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen demanded regime change as the primary goal, few newspapers and no Moroccans cited removal of the nation's King, Mohammed VI, as a motive for the February 20th Moroccan demonstrations.
Rather, it appears that the majority of Moroccans marched because they were pissed about unemployment, corruption in the Parliamant and the level of power-sharing between Parliament and the Monarch. The Washington Post adds that demonstrators wanted better economic opportunity, educational reform, health services and government assistance with rising living costs.
Further, most of the demonstration sites were organized and peaceful, probably due to the fact that the Moroccan population is allowed to legally demonstrate (unlike populations elsewhere). However, the Post also reported violence breaking out in Marrakesh as "youths threw rocks and mobs overturned and torched parked cars."
Also, the BBC reported the next day that five men were "killed" and burned in the north but sounded unconvinced that their deaths were the result of political uprise. In the local newspaper this morning, the Minister of Interior confirmed that five burnt corpses were found in a northern city. But, he too maintained a distance between their cause of deaths and the demonstrations.
So the demonstrations happened, had some violent moments and got some print space in the papers. But, what kind of televised coverage are they getting compared to other Middle Eastern countries? Well, after watching yesterday's news for about eight hours on Al-Arabiyah and Al-Jazeera, Morocco's demonstrations weren't discussed once, and I didn't see any headlines of them "rolling" across the bottom of the screen. I saw a two-minute segment on them this morning, but that was it.
So far, they haven't stacked up at all. But in all fairness, it's kind of difficult to compete with Qaddafi, as Libya's leader has everyone even forgetting about Egypt already. I imagine Morocco's King (as well as other Arab leaders) has already called Colonel Qaddafi for an unneeded personal thank you.
So, why is Morocco different? In explaining why the demonstration's results were different from the rest of the Middle East, both the Washington Post and BBC are quick to paint the country in a different light than its Arab neighbors. The Post says that Morocco's economy is better and more stable than its neighbors, citing tourism growth, respectable gross domestic and national products and strong ties to the West as contributing factors. The BBC notes the king's reforms over the past 12 years and how progressive he's been with technology and freedom of speech compared to the rest of the Middle East.
I see their logic and agree with both points. But, another possible reason for the lackluster showing may have been that the opposition leadership didn't have a clear or united purpose. I like how the Post described the call-to-demonstrate on Facebook:
This "movement" should pass quickly enough (if it hasn't already), but specific demonstrations regarding the country's bigger issues will justifiably continue...as they have in the past.
The Royal Palace and Parliament (not pictured, right). No one stirring.
But some time's passed, I walked around today, talked to some locals and I feel like discussing what I've seen and read about the political situation here. Before I do though, I just want to add that every country in the Middle East (or the parts I've seen of it) is different due to numerous factors. Most times, these matters differ from what we see in the U.S.; sometimes they're the same. And other times, the least of these factors is actually the guy sitting at the head of the table.
As you may know, since Tunisia cleared the head of its table, pretty much every Arab country except some gulf states has conducted newsworthy demonstrations demanding either the removal of leadership, sweeping reforms within their governments, or both. Tunisia and Egypt got what they wanted, and others may be on their way.
Morocco, however, will not be one of them. Despite not having a unified goal, organizers tried to get some specified demands answered but ultimately didn't have their hearts in it during their "big" nation-wide demonstrations on February 20th. Now, after a lackluster showing, I believe that the "movement" in Morocco is done - finished (or more accurately, never started). In my opinion (and it's still pretty raw), the 20 February demonstrations were a dip-the-toe-in-the-water moment designed to test the nation's resolve for change. Given the underwhelming numbers of participants, that water appears to be pretty cool. Estimates have varied as to how cool though.
The Washington Post reported a "weak turnout" of about 8,000 people. A little later, Al-Jazeera (Arabic) put the number of nation-wide demonstraters above 35,000 but noted the peaceful atmosphere. Today, my copy of the Rabat circular called it 37,000. Still, the population of the country sits around 35 million and the rally was held on a weekend. Quick math tells me only about .1% of the population participated at a convenient time.
On top of the low numbers, the flavor of the demonstrations differed from the others. Whereas demonstrations in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen demanded regime change as the primary goal, few newspapers and no Moroccans cited removal of the nation's King, Mohammed VI, as a motive for the February 20th Moroccan demonstrations.
Rather, it appears that the majority of Moroccans marched because they were pissed about unemployment, corruption in the Parliamant and the level of power-sharing between Parliament and the Monarch. The Washington Post adds that demonstrators wanted better economic opportunity, educational reform, health services and government assistance with rising living costs.
Further, most of the demonstration sites were organized and peaceful, probably due to the fact that the Moroccan population is allowed to legally demonstrate (unlike populations elsewhere). However, the Post also reported violence breaking out in Marrakesh as "youths threw rocks and mobs overturned and torched parked cars."
Also, the BBC reported the next day that five men were "killed" and burned in the north but sounded unconvinced that their deaths were the result of political uprise. In the local newspaper this morning, the Minister of Interior confirmed that five burnt corpses were found in a northern city. But, he too maintained a distance between their cause of deaths and the demonstrations.
So the demonstrations happened, had some violent moments and got some print space in the papers. But, what kind of televised coverage are they getting compared to other Middle Eastern countries? Well, after watching yesterday's news for about eight hours on Al-Arabiyah and Al-Jazeera, Morocco's demonstrations weren't discussed once, and I didn't see any headlines of them "rolling" across the bottom of the screen. I saw a two-minute segment on them this morning, but that was it.
So far, they haven't stacked up at all. But in all fairness, it's kind of difficult to compete with Qaddafi, as Libya's leader has everyone even forgetting about Egypt already. I imagine Morocco's King (as well as other Arab leaders) has already called Colonel Qaddafi for an unneeded personal thank you.
So, why is Morocco different? In explaining why the demonstration's results were different from the rest of the Middle East, both the Washington Post and BBC are quick to paint the country in a different light than its Arab neighbors. The Post says that Morocco's economy is better and more stable than its neighbors, citing tourism growth, respectable gross domestic and national products and strong ties to the West as contributing factors. The BBC notes the king's reforms over the past 12 years and how progressive he's been with technology and freedom of speech compared to the rest of the Middle East.
I see their logic and agree with both points. But, another possible reason for the lackluster showing may have been that the opposition leadership didn't have a clear or united purpose. I like how the Post described the call-to-demonstrate on Facebook:
The self-styled "February 20 movement" - apparently not for any particular historic reason - was largely summoned through social media like Facebook.
But the open call to demonstrate also caused confusion, as disparate political and religious groups elbowed their way in and sought to reshape a protest movement to serve their own ends.
One youth-led group initially behind the call to march - whose name translates as the Freedom and Democracy Now Movement - canceled its plan to take part on Saturday, saying the movement was hijacked by leftist political parties and Islamists seeking to infuse ideology and faith issues.To me, this type of political bickering screams "Hey! Everyone else is doing it, let's do it too! Wait, what do we want again?" So, I haven't taken these demonstrations too seriously and had to chuckle at the Post's world-map description of it last night - though factually accurate (as far as I could tell), they certainly picked some choice words to make the story more interesting!
Demonstrators Today NOT "Picking a Fight" in front of the Royal Palace and a Ministry of Education Building
This "movement" should pass quickly enough (if it hasn't already), but specific demonstrations regarding the country's bigger issues will justifiably continue...as they have in the past.
who ever instituted regime change while reclining in the shade?
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to hear that it's unlikely you'll be caught in the middle of a revolution. Great work on the blog!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the feedback! I should've added that I'm also glad that any future revolution here is looking unlikely! I couldn't help but notice the pictures in the newspapers recently (US, Europe, Middle East, Morocco) and want to post my perspective because the two - to me at least - appear quite different. And, thankfully, this government seems to "get" what the people want. Hopefully, they're able to solve some of their current issues, but they'll take some time (like anywhere)!
ReplyDelete