HIBAPRESS – Abdellatif Baraka
The oral question session in the House of Representatives recently turned from a constitutional space dedicated to questioning the government about citizens' issues to a scene of sharp verbal clashes between the session chair "Idriss Chatti" and the Justice and Development Party, in an incident that brought to the forefront the problem of parliamentary discipline and the limits of political discourse under the dome of the legislative institution.
The beginning of the tension came against the backdrop of what the session chair considered "disturbance" from the Justice and Development Party representatives during the answer of the Minister of Agriculture on Monday, May 18, which prompted him to use controversial descriptions when he described the team as "Shiites and communists", in an attempt to express the state of chaos inside the hall. This description did not pass without notice, as it angered "Ibrahimi" from the parliamentary team, and led to a verbal escalation that almost took the session off its institutional course. Faced with the intensification of tension, the session chair was forced to temporarily suspend the work, before it resumed in a more calm atmosphere, where apologies were exchanged and provocative phrases were withdrawn from the minutes of the session. However, the repercussions of the incident did not stop at this point, after the session chair justified his use of that description as inspired by descriptions circulated after a meeting that brought together the Secretary-General of the Justice and Development Party Abdelilah Benkirane with the Secretary-General of the Progress and Socialism Party Nabil Benabdallah. This incident, although it ended with a mutual apology, reveals the level of political tension that has begun to seep into the legislative institution, and raises serious questions about the extent to which the parliamentary teams adhere to the rules of sound discussion, and respect the internal regulations that frame the conduct of the sessions and define the controls of intervention and interaction. Observers believe that the slippage of the discussion towards exchanging descriptions and epithets reflects a disturbing shift in the nature of political discourse, where the logic of bidding and partisan attraction prevails at the expense of objective discussion related to citizen issues, especially in light of an economic and social context that requires greater focus on public policies and realistic solutions. The incident also highlights the limits of the overlap between partisan discourse and institutional discourse, as the parliament is supposed to form a space for responsible discussion, away from narrow political employments or the invocation of ideological backgrounds that do not serve public debate. This incident raises a fundamental question, will the parliament succeed in restoring its prestige as a space for sound democratic debate, or will the logic of partisan conflict continue to dominate the priorities of legislation and oversight? The question remains open, pending more mature political practices that meet the expectations of Moroccans, especially as the legislative elections are on the horizon next September.
