Professor Lagrini, do you see the low turnout in the Moroccan elections as a form of protest?
The 37% turnout exceeded even the most negative predictions. The extensive mass media campaign which was launched to persuade the population to vote did not have the hoped-for effects – out of 15.5 million people, only 5.7 million made a positive response. We must remember that the turnout in the legislative elections over the years has shown a worrying slump: 62.75% in 1993, 58.30% in 1997, and 52% in 2002. Popular political participation is a pillar of the democratic system. This culture of abstention is due to the social and political events that have marked Morocco’s history, and now people prefer to keep their distance from politics. And it is true that the refusal to vote is a reaction to the actions of those political parties, associated with various governments from 1998 onwards, who have not kept their promises to the electorate. There are groups (parties, civil society organisations, intellectuals and journalists) who have accused the citizens of having wasted a precious opportunity to change their reality.
Who is responsible for this situation?
I think that the State has some responsibility – in the past the people were afraid to get involved in politics because membership of a political party was considered to be a crime. The negative role of the state apparatus in electoral fraud, and in the weaknening and implosion of parties, is well-known. This is why we have reached the quota of 33 parties. On the other hand, the the parties themselves are not detached from the situation. They exist solely because of the elections, and yet they have not guaranteed internal democracy amongst their own members, and this reinforces the image of the parliamentary deputy concerned only in looking after his own interests. We must take this phenomenon of abstention seriously, avoiding erroneous comparisons with those Western countries who have also witnessed low turnouts. Their democracies are mature and stable, whilst ours is taking its first steps. We are seeing in some Western countries a decrease in ‘political appetite’ because democracy is widely diffused and their economies are satisfactory.
The Moroccan elections have posed the problem of parties as “extras” in the Arab world. What can be done to solve this problem?
In recent years, many Eastern European and Latin American countries have chosen democracy as a form of government and have made serious changes. Arab countries, on the other hand, have contented themselves with slow and partial ‘reforms’ which do not meet the demands of their peoples. In fact, some reforms, such as those concerning elections, are merely propaganda introduced to improve the image of the regimes abroad, and this has been made possible thanks in part to the collaboration, be it ignorant or conscious, of the political parties. The Moroccan parties which form the government, for example, have no power in important ministries such as that of the Interior or the Foreign Ministry. These are institutions which depend directly on the King.
The Party of Justice and Development (PJD) failed to win the 70 seats forecast by the pre-electoral polls. How can this partial failure be explained?
It is true – the polls predicted it would be the principal victor, because in the 2002 elections it participated in just 51 constituencies and won 42 seats, whereas in these elections it participated in 94 constituencies, and has won 46 seats. In the previous legislature, the deputies of the PJD behaved with seriousness and a sense of responsibility, consistently participating fully in the work of the Parliament. The fact of not having participated in the out-going government and of having sat on the opposition benches was important in securing consensus among the voters. At any rate, the result obtained by this party disproves the theory that organising regular and transparent elections with the participation of Islamic parties throws open the door to power to Islamic fundamentalists – as happened in Algeria in 1991.
During the electoral campaign, there was a lot of talk of the leader of the PJD, Saad Eddine el-Othmani, as the new Erdogan. Do you feel that this was an electoral ploy, or a way of calming those who are afraid of the Islamists?
The PJD doesn’t evoke any fear in Morocco. It has managed to survive the difficult situation which resulted, on both a national and international level, from the terrorist attacks of recent years. There were strong attempts to associate Islamic political formations of an Islamic nature with extremism and terrorism. But, at any rate, article 19 of our constitution states that the King is the guarantor of the continuity of the State. As such, there are no fears for the future of democracy in Morocco.
Is it possible to apply the Turkish model (in which the President of the State and the head of government are Islamic) in the Arab world?
Islamic political movements in Turkey have accumulated important experiences in an extremely difficult secular context. Despite pressures, Erdogan’s party has benefitted from the democratic system and has learnt valuable lessons from the mistakes made by the Refah party (founded by Necmettin Erbakan, from which come many of the founding members of the AKP – Ed.) Erdogan’s party has concentrated on the major economic and social questions, avoiding discussions which centre on customs, such as the wearing of the veil and swearing loyalty to the secular State. As far as the Arab world is concerned, however, I don’t believe that we can extend the Turkish model to our own countries. There are two basic reasons for this: there is no real democracy here which would allow Islamic parties to gain power; and these political groups have not yet reached maturity in the programmes that they propose. This last point is true not only of Islamic, but of all Arab political parties.
Translation by Liz Longden