Aboubakr Jamai in the Daily Star:
"Morocco's King Mohammed VI, who ascended the throne in 1999 following the death of his father King Hassan II, is moving ahead with reforms in some areas such as women's rights. But he maintains an ambivalent, sometimes hostile attitude toward the country's new independent press. This press, which consists of several weekly newspapers published in Arabic and French, emerged in the second half of the 1990's. The collective circulation of newspapers exceeds 100,000, a sizeable figure by Moroccan standards. Those independent from political parties, the government and the palace have broken many taboos in the past five years by investigating human rights abuses committed by the security apparatus, the corruption of government officials and the fortune of the king. For this, they have found themselves in frequent confrontation with the government. During the king's first year on the throne, some independent journals were banned and their journalists harassed. Press repression has worsened in the wake of the government's "fight against terrorism," launched after the May 16, 2003 terrorist bombings in Casablanca. Two journalists were the first victims of the anti-terrorist law passed soon after the attacks. They were jailed after publishing a letter from a man claiming responsibility for the bombings and for conducting an interview with a member of an illegal Islamist group. Only after intense national and international campaigns did the government release them.
"Some analysts attribute such clampdowns as part of a necessary phase of adjustment for King Mohammed VI. They also describe it as a reaction to the audacity of the independent press, which, in their view, justifies government control. Such views are misleading. They imply that political and media liberalization began under the reign of the present king. In fact, it was during the last years of the reign of Hassan II that a gradual, yet steady opening of the media sector occurred. The press criticized government policies more openly, and published, without incurring the wrath of the palace, path-breaking stories about the three first decades of the rule of Hassan II, a time known for widespread human rights violations.
"The views are also undermined by facts. If the repression of independent media at the beginning of the reign of Mohammed VI reflected his inexperience instead of an anti-liberal vision, then how can ongoing repressive measures be explained more than five years into his reign? To answer this question it is important to understand the editorial line of publications that have been the target of harassment. The independent papers have been unrelenting in their defense of democratic ideals. They have argued for constitutional reforms to reduce the powers of the monarchy and enhance those of the elected Parliament. They have investigated cases of torture perpetrated by the secret police of the new regime. They have published exposes revealing the monarchy's harmful involvement in the Moroccan business world.
"These publications were the recipients of executive orders banning them, and later of judicial harassment. Such repressive tactics were staunchly denounced, notably by international human rights groups. The criticism tarnished the monarchy's image abroad, and subsequently, the authorities tried to use less conspicuous methods."
(there's more; read the rest)
No real comment other than to point out a fine account of yet another Arab press disappointment. I guess I've made it pretty clear over the years here, to the point of sounding like a one-trick aardvark, that I consider a free, contentious, effective media a core ingredient of any successful reform project or of any functioning democracy.
If only the US could take a credible and effective stance in favor of press freedoms in the region... it's so much easier to produce results in the media realm than in big ticket items like elections, or drastic economic improvements, and would have such huge payoffs. Yeah, that free media is going to bash the United States from time to time, and its going to cause headaches for the existing regimes, but the former is something we should be able to live with, and the latter... well, isn't that the point?
Comments