HIBAPRESS – Rabat
The new government is entering a political and executive phase that goes beyond the stakes of rearranging ministerial portfolios and renewing faces. It places them before a test more closely linked to the daily reality of citizens, which is its ability to respond to social and developmental expectations and translate declared commitments into tangible results.
Whatever the importance of the changes affecting the composition of the executive body or its organizational structure, its value will remain linked to the extent of its reflection on employment, purchasing power, the quality of public services, and equity between territorial areas.
This equation necessitates reading the government's performance from the angle of the impact of public policies, not through the volume of announced programs or the number of initiatives being launched.
The fundamental challenge is not only to expand government interventions but to ensure their coherence, effectiveness, and ability to reach the groups and regions most in need of support and investment.
Strengthening the social state is one of the most prominent tests that the new government will face, given its direct link to citizens' expectations in areas of employment, health, education, social protection, and improving purchasing power. These are interconnected issues that cannot be dealt with as separate sectors, because a deficiency in one of them affects the rest of the areas and the level of trust in public policies.
Employment, for example, is not only linked to creating new jobs but requires coordination between investment, training, human resource qualification, and improving the business environment.
Developing health and educational services is not achieved by merely providing resources, but necessitates improving governance, developing competencies, and ensuring a more balanced distribution of equipment and services.
From here, the government's success in strengthening the social state requires moving from the logic of multiple programs to the logic of their integration, and from focusing on the volume of interventions to evaluating their results.
The basic criterion is not the number of announced projects, but their ability to improve living conditions, expand opportunities for economic and social integration, and reduce manifestations of vulnerability.
This approach also requires clarity in prioritizing, so that efforts are not scattered among many goals without sufficient impact in any of them. The more defined the government's choices are, and the more resources are directed according to clear needs, the greater the chances of achieving measurable and evaluable results.
The stakes of the social state are not complete without giving territorial justice a central place in public policies. The disparities between governorates and regions are not limited to differences in the volume of investment, but extend to opportunities for access to education, health, transportation, basic infrastructure, and administrative services.
These disparities necessitate moving beyond an approach that views development solely from the perspective of general national indicators and shifting to a more accurate evaluation of how much various territorial areas benefit from the fruits of growth and public programs.
Some policies may achieve positive results at the overall level, without reflecting them to the same extent in the regions least benefiting from investment and services.
Achieving territorial justice requires strengthening coordination between sectoral policies and territorial programs, and directing resources according to actual needs, while taking into account the economic and social specificities of each region.
It also requires adopting indicators that allow for identifying disparities and tracking their development, making the evaluation of public policies more linked to the local reality.
In this context, territorial justice becomes more than just a development goal; it transforms into a criterion for the fairness of government policies and their ability to achieve equal opportunities. The government's success is not measured only by the growth or investment it achieves, but also by the extent to which benefits and opportunities are distributed more balancedly among citizens and regions.
Employment represents one of the most capable files for measuring the gap between political discourse and practical results, given its connection to social stability, youth prospects, and families' ability to cope with living costs.
Announcing general initiatives is not enough in this area; it requires integrated policies that link productive investment with training suitable for the economy's needs, stimulating entrepreneurship, and improving professional integration opportunities.
Purchasing power also remains one of the most prominent indicators on which citizens rely to evaluate government performance, as it reflects the impact of economic and social policies on their daily lives.
Therefore, addressing this issue requires considering the relationship between job opportunities, income levels, and the costs of basic services, while ensuring that interventions are directed towards the groups most affected by economic pressures.
The importance of coordination between economic and social policies is highlighted here, so that sectoral interventions do not achieve limited or contradictory results. The effectiveness of public policy is linked to its ability to combine support for economic activity, improvement of living conditions, and strengthening social protection, within a clear vision that defines priorities and expected results.
In the context of rapid transformations in the economy and society, digital transformation, artificial intelligence, and innovation files are gaining increasing importance, given their ability to contribute to modernizing administration, improving service quality, and enhancing economic competitiveness. However, the inclusion of these files within the government's priorities should not remain linked to the attractiveness of their titles or the modernity of their concepts, but rather to their transformation into practical tools for improving public performance and responding to the needs of citizens and businesses.
Digital transformation can contribute to simplifying administrative procedures, reducing file processing times, improving access to services, and enhancing transparency. Innovation can also support the development of economic activities and create new opportunities, provided that a suitable institutional environment is available, human resources are qualified, and equitable access to digital infrastructure is ensured.
The success of these transformations depends on the government's ability to integrate them into a comprehensive reform of the administration, linking technology to improved governance and service quality, rather than merely digitizing existing procedures without addressing their shortcomings.
Food sovereignty also holds particular importance in light of economic and climate changes, due to the questions related to production sustainability, the ability to cope with fluctuations, and ensuring supply stability.
This file requires coordination between production and investment policies and sustainable resource management, thereby strengthening the economy's ability to respond to changing challenges.
Social dialogue, in turn, represents a fundamental mechanism for reconciling points of view among the concerned parties, and managing differences on social and professional issues. Its importance lies in its ability to produce implementable understandings, not just in organizing meetings or issuing statements.
The effectiveness of social and developmental policies depends on the quality of their management and the extent of coordination between the intervening sectors and institutions. Many of the challenges at hand cannot be solved through the intervention of a single sector, but require an intersection of multiple fields, which makes government coordination a crucial factor in the success of programs.
These data necessitate precise identification of responsibilities, setting measurable goals, and adopting clear timelines for implementation, while establishing regular mechanisms for monitoring progress and addressing setbacks.
It also calls for linking resources allocated to programs to their actual return, so that the volume of spending or the number of projects does not become the sole criterion for evaluating success.
Governance should move beyond the logic of administrative reports that focus on completed activities, towards evaluating the impact of policies on the lives of beneficiaries. Launching a social program does not necessarily mean its success, and completing infrastructure is not enough to prove development achievement unless it contributes to improving access to services, creating economic opportunities, or reducing disparities.
This approach gives accountability and transparency a central role, as it allows citizens and institutional actors to evaluate performance based on clear data, and enables the government to correct its choices whenever results show imbalances or limited impact.
The social stake of the new government is inseparable from its political and institutional stake, because trust in institutions is strengthened by the extent of correspondence between promises and results.
The citizen awaits policies capable of bringing about tangible change in living conditions, not just broad programs or speeches containing ambitious goals. Therefore, moving towards results-based management requires clearly announcing priorities, defining the indicators by which the outcome will be measured, publishing data related to the level of implementation, and distinguishing between announced projects and those that have entered the implementation phase, and between material achievement and socio-economic impact.
This approach also requires the government's readiness to take responsibility for setbacks, explain their causes, and take the necessary corrective measures. Accountability should not be limited to evaluating what has been achieved, but should also include how difficulties are managed and the extent of the ability to adjust policies based on results.
