At the heart of parliamentary debates on the organic law project concerning the House of Representatives lies a dual dilemma: on one side, a legal text; on the other, a complex electoral reality. The Federation of Democratic Left, led by Secretary-General Abdesslam Aziz, considers the project disappointing, as it fails to incorporate the party’s proposals or the memoranda from other parties. This raises a fundamental question: are parliamentary consultation mechanisms merely formalities, or do they genuinely serve to produce structural solutions to political problems?
Aziz goes beyond mere formal criticism, asserting that the law provides no real answer to the central crisis: corruption that undermines institutional credibility and drives citizen disengagement. Corruption, he explains, has become the major theme of elections and the main obstacle to building institutions capable of effectively performing legislative and oversight functions.
The law appears to treat corruption as an individual problem that can be solved by barring certain candidates or increasing penalties, whereas the reality is far more complex. Corruption is an interconnected system requiring comprehensive reform across all stages of the electoral process, from supervision and districting to voter registration and the announcement of results. The pressing question: can any law alone curb such a complex system without genuine political will?
Moreover, Aziz points out that raising penalties alone is insufficient. Even if one corrupt candidate is barred, others can manipulate the electoral process if the legal mechanisms allow it. All elections have seen increased penalties, yet they have remained ineffective as a deterrent.
Regarding the new provisions for financing young candidates under 35 and simplifying their candidacy procedures, these may initially appear as an opportunity to renew political elites and support independent youth. In reality, however, they will collide with entrenched corruption and interest lobbies: thousands of campaign workers, vote-buying, manipulation of counting, falsification of reports… all practices preventing young candidates from achieving meaningful results. A critical question arises: how can 350,000 dirhams compete with the resources of entrenched corruption lobbies?
On rights and freedoms, the project also raises concerns about criminalizing doubts regarding election integrity. According to the Federation, this reflects a regressive trend in laws that restrict freedoms and recalls the laws of the “Years of Lead,” when questioning authority was punishable. The question for the public remains: do these restrictive policies rewrite history in a new form, or will society resist these practices?
In conclusion, the law project exposes a clear gap between legal texts and electoral reality. It poses a central question: can any law, however ambitious, stop corruption and restore trust in institutions without real political will and collective awareness? Or will history continue to repeat itself, with faces changing while the system remains the same?
