3 ms·

Here's a link to Morocco's constitution in English: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Morocco_2011 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/M

by timinou 2mo ago

Here's a link to Morocco's constitution in English: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Morocco_2011 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Morocco_2011 We kinda voted for it, so it's quite binding on the king. We also have elections in a couple of months. The king has clear areas where he's limited, for example that he has to appoint the chief of government from the party that came in first. In practice though, democracy doesn't seem to work at enacting very long term plans. The current dynasty knows how to balance out the different sources of power within the country (local/tribal, economic, and institutional), and they've done it for several centuries. It helps, in our regions, to have symbols to unite so many people who are so different from each other. Now, the king and the palace are very rich and benefit from their positions. Institutional insiders rig the game. But elected officials do so the most in Morocco, and elected officials extract from the system in the West as well. It's an oligarchy anyway no matter which side you live on.

artnanika 2mo ago
For reference, Algeria too has a constitution : https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Algeria_2020 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Algeria_2020 But I assume you did not call Algeria a constitutional dictatorship because the Algerian constitution itself isn't really binding. If your constitution doesn't allow for the impeachment of the head of state/government for violations of the constitution, then it is effectively meaningless. That's the difference between a law and a rule, the law is binding while rules aren't. The US and French constitutions for example clearly outline procedures to impeach the head of the executive, while no such measures exist for the head of the executive in Morocco.
- timinou 2mo ago
  You don't need a constitution to depose leaders, a popular revolution will do the trick. Also, an impeachment clause doesn't prevent fascism. Many supposed democracies see their leaders flout the constitution constantly without consequences. Constitution aren't truths, they're collective lies we agreed upon. In Morocco, authority is a social contract that is bound by customs, not by a blind belief in the moral superiority of law. An impeachment clause is only necessary when you believe that government is the ultimate authority. If Moroccans believed that, then yes, your argument about hereditary monarchy would make sense. That's not the case. No-one believes in authority here; we only accept it. So we know that if the king loses legitimacy, a popular revolution will happen. And the king knows that, so he won't push the buttons too much either.
fy20 2mo ago
Doesn't sound much different from Britain, especially the part about long term plans and oligarchs. Except no Briton alive today voted for monarchy :)
inglor_cz 2mo ago
The Soviet Union had a pretty impressive constitution too. The usual problem was respecting it. You need an independent constitutional court with actual teeth for any constitution to work.

by timinou 2mo ago

artnanika 2mo ago

For reference, Algeria too has a constitution : https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Algeria_2020 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Algeria_2020 But I assume you did not call Algeria a constitutional dictatorship because the Algerian constitution itself isn't really binding. If your constitution doesn't allow for the impeachment of the head of state/government for violations of the constitution, then it is effectively meaningless. That's the difference between a law and a rule, the law is binding while rules aren't. The US and French constitutions for example clearly outline procedures to impeach the head of the executive, while no such measures exist for the head of the executive in Morocco.

timinou 2mo ago
You don't need a constitution to depose leaders, a popular revolution will do the trick. Also, an impeachment clause doesn't prevent fascism. Many supposed democracies see their leaders flout the constitution constantly without consequences. Constitution aren't truths, they're collective lies we agreed upon. In Morocco, authority is a social contract that is bound by customs, not by a blind belief in the moral superiority of law. An impeachment clause is only necessary when you believe that government is the ultimate authority. If Moroccans believed that, then yes, your argument about hereditary monarchy would make sense. That's not the case. No-one believes in authority here; we only accept it. So we know that if the king loses legitimacy, a popular revolution will happen. And the king knows that, so he won't push the buttons too much either.

fy20 2mo ago

Doesn't sound much different from Britain, especially the part about long term plans and oligarchs. Except no Briton alive today voted for monarchy :)

inglor_cz 2mo ago

The Soviet Union had a pretty impressive constitution too. The usual problem was respecting it. You need an independent constitutional court with actual teeth for any constitution to work.