HIBAPRESS – By Abdellatif Baraka
In a context marked by the multiple political, social, and economic challenges facing Morocco, the speech of Idriss Lashkar, the First Secretary of the Socialist Union of Popular Forces party, during the proceedings of the party's twelfth national conference held in Bouznika, came as an intervention carrying both analytical and critical dimensions, seeking to question the institutional situation, the position of the state, and the effectiveness of public policies in achieving development and social justice.
The speech was not a customary political review, but rather an attempt to reformulate central questions concerning the functions of the state and institutions, as well as an attempt to evoke structural flaws that hinder the harmony between different levels of governance. Lashkar did not hide his concern about the widening gap between the executive bodies and the bodies that were supposed to play neutral advisory roles, warning against what he called "a geometric duality in public decision-making," where non-elected institutions become part of planning and implementation mechanisms without being subject to the tools of democratic oversight and accountability. This is about raising a deep problem related to the balance of power within the political system, specifically the limits of the intervention of governance institutions, which are supposed to represent a supporting advisory dimension, rather than turning into unannounced alternatives to government decisions. It is an implicit call to evaluate the role of these institutions, not only in terms of the success of their outputs but also in terms of their impact on the overall harmony in institutional work and its connection to representative legitimacy. The speech was also distinguished by its boldness in dismantling the relationship between the state and society, through criticism of the transformations that the concept of "development" itself had undergone. According to Lashkar, development is no longer measured from a social or liberation perspective, but has become subject to a technical logic that produces figures directed to funding funds more than it reflects the reality of internal needs. He went further than that when he accused the public administration of turning into a functional tool to satisfy external indicators, rather than being a tool to serve citizens. The political message from this proposal is clear: there is an imbalance in the compass, where the national project is eroding between market logic, pressure from international financiers, and the weakness of sovereignty over social decision-making. From this perspective, the call for "liberation from technical guardianship" came as a political message directed to those who link economic and investment choices to external dictates. However, the speech was not content with criticism, but rather carried the features of an alternative vision, which is based on the transition from a state that seeks to compensate vulnerable groups through direct support, to a state that encourages initiative, restores the consideration of equal opportunities, bets on collective intelligence, and integrates the citizen in all stages of decision-making, from diagnosis to evaluation. This transition from the "relieving state" to the "enabling state," as Lashkar portrayed it, requires a review of the logic of managing public policies as a whole. It is noteworthy that Lashkar's speech carried a political dimension that transcends the partisan framework, in an attempt to formulate a proposal that touches the essence of the democratic crisis in Morocco and the limitations that characterize the relationship between the state and society. He stressed that social democracy cannot be reduced to the results of the ballot or government programs, but rather is manifested in the daily practice of the right to participate, empowerment, and benefit from the fruits of development, not in waiting for the fair distribution of poverty. Thus, the speech of the First Secretary of the Socialist Union, on the occasion of the twelfth national conference, presented a critical reading of the depths of the stage's problems, evoking the challenges of development, governance flaws, the erosion of trust, and indicators of inequality, within a vision that re-raises the fundamental question about the meaning of the state, its functions, and the fate of the national project. It is not just a rhetorical moment, but a political contribution that requires a wider national debate, going beyond partisan alignment, towards rebuilding the social contract on the basis of participation, justice, and sovereignty over decision-making.
