One of the less noted aspects of the “Arab Spring” is how secure the region’s monarchies appear to be.
But why? They too have their inequalities and their restricted franchises- in the case of Saudi Arabia, no franchise. Nevertheless, Morocco, Jordan, Oman, with the exception of Bahrain, have avoided a tempestuous confrontation between protestors and the authorities, even though none of them have escaped protest of the milder variety.
The answer, I would guess, is that, despite the monarchies retaining most of the political power, they have been flexible and reformist.
Morocco is a case in point. Reform actually began under the father of the present king who was widely and rightly considered an old fashioned despot. Under pressure from Europe and the US, human rights groups such as Amnesty International and local political parties, in his last years the king allowed the release of most political prisoners, relaxed censorship and reined in the security forces.
His son, Mohammed VI, coming to the throne in 1999, continued the process. In 2002, he surprised everyone by handing over a slice of power to a former Amnesty-adopted political prisoner who earlier had been sentenced to death. The socialist, Aderrahmane Youssoufi, was appointed prime minister. Funding for health and education rose. A minister for justice was appointed who once had headed the country’s largest human rights organisation. The king also released from house arrest the leader of one of the more militant Islamic groups. The Equity and Reconciliation Commission was appointed. It finished its work five years ago. It acknowledged a past of gross human rights violations- torture and false imprisonment, often in solitary confinement with their families being told nothing- not even if their relative was alive or dead.
Amnesty in one report said that they recognised some positive developments- financial compensation for 742 cases of enforced disappearance. The government also provided medical rehabilitation and a restitution of previous employment.
Nevertheless, with Egypt and Tunisia in the midst of revolt, copycat protests erupted in February this year and continued until June. They were non-violent — at one point 8,000 doctors staged a sit-in. The security forces were kept on a tighter reign than they had been in earlier times, although there were plenty of beatings and one demonstrator was tortured and another died.
Today the secular Istiqlal (Independent) party runs the government. In the last election the party only won 16 per cent of the vote, but enough to make it the biggest party in a very fragmented legislature (which suits the king). It trumped the party that many observers thought would win- the Islamic Justice and Development party. Although it is a moderate party and does campaign for a slow modernisation it has a long way to go before it will be as liberal as its Turkish namesake.
The head of the Istqlal party, Prime Minister Abbas El Fassi, is a man not known, judging from his previous governmental and diplomatic posts, to be much of a liberalising force. He went along with the repressive practices of the former regimes. However, to its credit, the party does have dozens of female candidates who don’t wear headscarves and seven women are members of the government.
There remains much to criticise. There are still some arbitrary arrests. The press is pretty well controlled and repression continues in the Western Sahara, the desert region which Morocco annexed at the time Spain was giving up its colony there. Morocco has dug in its heels against UN efforts to persuade it to hold a referendum there.
Is Morocco a pace-setter for the Arab world? In many ways yes — at the moment. But assuming the promised free and fair elections happen in Egypt and Tunisia these two countries should soon leap ahead of Morocco and then Morocco will have to put its foot on the liberalising accelerator if it wants to remain one of the front-runners.
Jonathan Power is a veteran foreign affairs commentator based in London
