Unbrideled Pluralism

No doubt the basis of every decent democracy is pluralism and difference. Pluralism guarantees that decisions regarding the fate of a given community are not polarized unto one person or body; for notwithstanding the good intentions that might motivate this person or this body there is always room for unintentional (most of the time, intentional) mistake, shortsightedness and erring. Therefore, the more the participation of the components of society, the better the evaluation of the needs, and the more efficient the policies to adopt. But even then, pluralism cannot be relied upon that much unless there is difference. Difference serves as an engine to pluralism and has always enhanced understanding of the issues at stake, and allowed the belligerents to see more clearly what they are up to. A number of those countries that have adopted democracy in its basic form have had the relatively good outcome where the people's welfare, development and security have been safeguarded and prospects for a better future wave at the horizon.

In Morocco “ let me put it square and straight“ there are about 32 official political parties (Thirty-Two, in case you think it's a typing mistake), and half a dozen others that are not recognized as legal entities either because they oppose the monarchy as a whole, or they have a more objective attitude towards the question of Western Sahara, or both. This big number makes the pride of many over here for the simple reason that pluralism means, to these empty heads, that the bigger the number, the more valid the democracy. In this respect, with 32 political parties Morocco outwits Canada and the G8 countries! They are expected to follow the example if they really want to be democratic and deserve the etiquette; for most of them ONLY have a few. Yet, while pluralism is guaranteed to excess, it seems there is not much difference at the basis of such a big crowd. There are pre-set guidelines that every political party should follow and the rest is just improvisation. It is not surprising, then, to find, side by side on the local political chessboard, such labels as the Popular Democratic Party and the Democratic Popular Party; the National Liberation Front and the National Front for Liberation; and the Constitutional League along with the League for the Constitution. Not counting that at the eve of every poll, other parties are hatched for the occasion. At this pace, it would not be surprising that within a couple of decades or so, there would be more parties than there are citizens!

But the most embarrassing issue about this phenomenon is the impossibility for a political party to win elections with a dead majority. The few crumbs of votes each of them get are never enough and it is always the king's duty to appoint, among the mediocrity that's applying, those that have fairly acceptable standards; and the best thing these applicants might do is to take care of their family, their cattle (not necessarily animals), and their personal interest, generally embodied in a car brand, or government vouchers. If our party leaders were in countries where the community comes before personal interest, they would have been hanged, without remorse, in public squares. But what can we do? The marrow of the whole regime draws its subsistence from such mediocrity. One question comes up here: are regimes set up to guarantee the welfare of the people, or are the people compelled to guarantee the welfare of an imposed regime?