Think Forward.
World Politics Politics History Technology Science Art Music Society Lifestyle Business Finance Health Sports Poetry Short Stories Philosophy Science Fiction Romance Realist Fiction Fantasy Biography Mystery Western Thriller Other Worldly

Morocco–France Relations in Africa: A New Geopolitical Equation? 56

Aziz Daouda, 2 h.
When Jean‑Christophe Ruffin — physician, humanitarian, diplomat and writer — described France as “a frog that thinks it’s an ox,” he wasn’t merely trying to provoke. He was offering a harsh, and perhaps accurate, diagnosis of the gap between France’s self-image as a great power and the reality of a world that is moving on unless Paris adopts a new paradigm. For decades Paris relied on its history, language, diplomatic network and military strength to preserve influence in Africa. But the geopolitical shifts of the past twenty years have profoundly altered the balance of power. From our perspective here, Africa is no longer a reserved sphere. Emerging powers — China, Turkey, India, the Gulf states, Russia and others — now offer alternative partnerships, while African states assert their sovereignty and freedom of choice with growing confidence. This is a form of emancipation, decades after independence, and a rejection of structures that sometimes perpetuated one‑way flows of benefit created during colonial times. In this new context, France must accept that the era of “Françafrique” is over. Old reflexes inherited from the past no longer meet the expectations of younger African generations; on the contrary, they provoke rejection and tension toward regimes accused of being overly dependent on Paris. Rhetoric about historic friendship can no longer mask a desire for balanced, transparent and mutually beneficial ties. Today's generations are unafraid to take to the streets and openly voice their rejection — even hatred — of France. It is precisely in this configuration that Morocco, having modernized and emancipated itself early, emerges as an indispensable partner. For more than two decades, under His Majesty King Mohammed VI, Morocco has built a markedly different presence across Africa. Banks, insurance, telecoms, agriculture, fertilizers, infrastructure, training, health and renewable energy — Morocco favors investments that create local value rather than a logic of domination. It champions cooperation over one‑way extraction. The Kingdom asks for no ideological alignment or political fealty in return for its investments. It prioritizes partnerships based on reciprocal interest, respect for sovereignty and shared development. This “win‑win” philosophy is not diplomatic rhetoric; it has become the hallmark of Morocco’s Africa policy. France would do well to understand this shift quickly. Paris will likely need Morocco to rebuild credibility on the continent if it wishes to do so, but any cooperation cannot be a cosmetic modernization of old Françafrique practices. Africans will not accept that, and Morocco certainly will not. The Kingdom has neither the vocation nor the interest to serve as an intermediary to restore France’s declining influence. It cannot validate practices Africa is trying to move beyond. Any new partnership must be rooted in a genuinely new logic. France must accept that it is no longer the center of gravity for decisions, but one partner among many in a multipolar cooperation where every actor has clear interests. With its African credibility, Morocco can contribute expertise, economic networks and deep knowledge of the continent. France can add technological, industrial, academic and financial capacities. This complementarity could produce an unprecedented model of Euro‑African cooperation, freed from past burdens. If Paris persists in trying to reclaim yesterday’s influence by yesterday’s methods, failure is inevitable. Africa of 2030 or 2040 already differs from the Africa of the 1980s. Its demography, urbanization, entrepreneurial dynamism, rising elites and political assertiveness impose new rules. The real question is no longer whether France can return to Africa alone, but whether it is willing to admit the world has changed — and that Africa has changed even faster and more irreversibly. Morocco, for its part, need not change course. Its model demonstrates that influence can be built on trust rather than dependence, on future‑oriented partnerships rather than nostalgia. Viewed this way, Rabat can indeed help Paris — but according to twenty‑first‑century terms, not those of the twentieth century. The era when Africa endured strategies imposed by others is fading. Going forward, the partners who listen, invest and build with Africans will earn trust, particularly among the continent’s youth. Perhaps the greatest lesson of our time is this: power is no longer measured by the ability to impose, but by the ability to persuade and to create shared prosperity. Future agreements between Morocco and France must reflect the new realities of the world and the continent. France will then be neither frog nor ox, but France: a country that can both give and receive a great deal. Finally, Parisian media should weigh the impact of certain stances and editorial choices. Continuing to publish, under the banner of free expression, maps that exclude Morocco’s southern provinces needlessly offends a people and fuels tensions that harm France. Likewise, sterile ideological controversies do not serve public debate and obscure the transformations underway. Today, it is clear that France needs Africa and the Kingdom — for the good of all.

The Demiurge (Part 2 of 4) 80

Tupan, 5 h.
In the previous text, we explored how Plato, the Gnostics, and the Hermetic philosophers confronted the same question: why do human beings perceive only a fragment of reality? Although they reached different conclusions, all agreed that ordinary consciousness does not reveal the whole truth. The Gnostic understanding of the human condition also differs from Plato's. He believed that reason gradually elevates the soul toward truth. The Gnostics, by contrast, argued that reason alone is insufficient because the problem lies deeper than a lack of knowledge. Humanity has forgotten its own origin. The task is therefore to remember than merely to learn. This distinction helps explain why gnosis is often misunderstood. The Greek word simply means "knowledge," but in the Gnostic context it signifies far more than acquiring information. It is the recognition that one's deepest identity does not belong exclusively to the visible world. Knowledge becomes transformative because it changes the way reality itself is perceived. Not all ancient traditions accepted this separation between spirit and matter. Around the same period, another tradition emerged under the name of Hermes Trismegistus. Although Hermeticism shares certain themes with Gnosticism—hidden wisdom, spiritual ascent, and the importance of self-knowledge—it reaches very different conclusions. The Hermetic texts describe the universe as a living expression of Divine Mind. Creation is not viewed as the mistake of an ignorant ruler but as an ordered manifestation of a higher intelligence. Human beings descend into the material world not because they have been trapped by a false creator, but because embodied existence becomes the means through which consciousness matures. The challenge is not to escape creation but to understand it. This distinction changes the entire spiritual landscape. In many Gnostic systems, the world is something from which one seeks liberation. In Hermetic philosophy, it becomes something to be understood and integrated. Both traditions value awakening, but they define the object of this enlightenment differently. Seen together, Plato, the Gnostics, and the Hermetic philosophers offer three distinct responses to the same existential problem. For Plato, the visible world is real but incomplete. The philosopher's task is to look beyond appearances and discover the eternal principles that give the cosmos its order. For many Gnostic authors, the visible world reflects the limitations of its creator. Awakening requires recognizing that the deepest part of the human being belongs to a reality beyond the material cosmos. For the Hermetic tradition, the universe is neither prison nor illusion but a living expression of divine intelligence. Human beings awaken by learning to perceive the unity that underlies apparent separation. These perspectives arise from different historical contexts and metaphysical assumptions. Yet they all begin with the same premise: ordinary human perception does not exhaust reality. Whether described as ignorance, forgetfulness, or spiritual sleep, the human condition is characterized by a gap between what is and what is perceived. Perhaps this explains why the symbol of the prison has remained so powerful. A prison without walls is difficult to recognize because its boundaries are invisible. If every experience, belief, and certainty develops within the same horizon, there is little reason to suspect that another exists. The prisoners in Plato's cave do not question the shadows because they have never seen the fire. The Demiurge of the Gnostic texts does not recognize his limitations because he has never encountered the Pleroma. In both cases, the greatest obstacle is not deception imposed from outside but the inability to imagine a reality beyond one's present experience. This observation extends beyond ancient cosmology. Whether one interprets these narratives literally, symbolically, or psychologically, they invite the same question: how much of what we call reality is shaped by habit, culture, education, language, or inherited assumptions? At what point does familiarity become a kind of blindness? These are not questions that can be answered by archaeology or textual scholarship alone. They belong equally to philosophy, psychology, and the study of consciousness. They also explain why ancient Gnostic imagery continues to attract attention. Modern readers often recognize in these myths something that transcends their original religious setting: the possibility that human beings live within systems of perception they rarely examine. The language, however, has changed. Few contemporary thinkers interpret Yaldabaoth or the Archons literally. Instead, many describe structures of influence using terms such as ideology, conditioning, collective belief, unconscious bias, or, in some esoteric traditions, the Control Matrix. The underlying question remains familiar. If the ancient prison was built from metaphysical ignorance, the modern prison is often described as psychological, social, or cultural conditioning. Whether these modern reinterpretations faithfully reflect the intentions of the ancient Gnostics is another matter. The Gnostic texts emerged from specific religious debates in late antiquity, not from critiques of mass media, political systems, or modern consumer culture. Yet symbols often outlive the worlds that created them. As cultures change, old myths acquire new meanings, speaking to questions their authors could never have anticipated. The journey from Plato's cave to the Gnostic Demiurge therefore reveals more than the evolution of a theological concept. It traces the evolution of one of humanity's oldest questions: What limits our perception of reality? Plato answered by pointing to philosophical ignorance. The Gnostics pointed to cosmic forgetfulness. Hermetic philosophers pointed to the need for wisdom. Each proposed a different explanation, but none accepted ordinary consciousness as the final measure of truth. That question remains alive today. The walls of the prison, if they exist, are no longer imagined only as metaphysical boundaries separating heaven from earth. They may also be the assumptions through which individuals and societies interpret the world. Whether those assumptions arise from religion, politics, culture, psychology, or the human tendency to mistake familiarity for truth is precisely the issue explored by many contemporary esoteric traditions. It is there, in the modern reinterpretation of these ancient symbols, that the Demiurge begins to evolve into another image: the Control Matrix. The prison is no longer seen only as the architecture of the cosmos but as the architecture of consciousness. It is this transformation that marks the beginning of the next stage in the story.

Pegasus, the eternal media recycling... 280

Aziz Daouda, 22 h.
- Politics -
2.7 min read.
When some want to parasitize the Franco-Moroccan rapprochement what better than to bring up a matter however far-fetched it may be. The official visit of French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu to Rabat fits into a particularly strong dynamic of rapprochement between the Kingdom of Morocco and the French Republic. After several years of diplomatic tensions, the two capitals seem to have chosen to turn the page to rebuild a partnership based on common strategic interests: security, economy, investment, energy and regional cooperation. This new state of affairs does not, however, make everyone happy; the unlucky and dissatisfied being always the same. That goes without saying. For several months, a part of the French radical left, supported by certain media close to it, seems incapable of accepting this normalization of relations between Paris and Rabat. At each major diplomatic advance, the same accusations return, the same subjects are pulled from the archives, with a timing that raises questions. This time again, the scenario appears identical. Concomitant with Sébastien Lecornu’s visit to Rabat, his first foreign trip since his appointment, need it be recalled, behold the Pegasus affair resurfaces. A case nonetheless widely commented on for several years and which, despite its immense initial media impact, has never made it possible to judicially establish the most spectacular accusations leveled against Morocco. The method is now known: announce “new revelations”, promise explosive information, create media buzz... before the reader eventually discovers long pages that largely reprise elements already published, without any real new fact likely to change the file. The announcement effect then takes precedence over the information. This strategy occurs in a context where the Algerian regime is going through an especially delicate diplomatic period. Tensions with several Western partners are multiplying, while certain embarrassing judicial affairs further tarnish its image. Among them is notably the arrest in France of several Algerian nationals, including officials, suspected in a case of an attempted assassination targeting an Algerian influencer sheltered on French territory. A case that has caused deep discomfort and fueled questions about certain practices of Algerian services. This selective indignation appears all the more striking when compared to the silence observed around the imprisonment of French sports journalist Christophe Gleizes in Algeria. While that case raises questions about freedom of the press and the conditions of practicing journalism, it has not prompted the same mobilization from certain political and media circles that are so quick to denounce other states. This contrast fuels the feeling of a variable-geometry indignation, where the principles invoked sometimes seem to depend more on the designated target than on the constant defense of fundamental freedoms. In this difficult context for Algiers, any episode likely to weaken Morocco immediately becomes a subject of mobilization for networks that defend the positions of the Algerian regime. But this time again, the media timing seems to have produced the opposite effect to the one sought. At the same time, the French government announced its intention to issue up to 250,000 visas to Algerian nationals. This decision immediately provoked many reactions in France, where a significant part of public opinion considers that such a gesture is hardly justifiable in view of recent diplomatic tensions between Paris and Algiers as well as the difficulties encountered on migration issues. The public debate then quickly shifted. Instead of focusing on yet another resurgence of Pegasus, many French people expressed more their questions about this visa policy and the concessions granted to Algiers. Result: the attempt to put Pegasus back at the center of the news largely fell to the background. As with previous media waves, the affair sparked some big headlines before quickly running out of steam, for lack of genuinely new elements. In political communications, this is called a souffle that falls. Or, to borrow an expression now famous from the late Jacques Chirac: it went “pschitt”. Relations between the Kingdom of Morocco and the French Republic today seem to respond to a geostrategic logic much deeper than cyclical media controversies. The common interests between Rabat and Paris far exceed one-off communication campaigns. They transcend the whims of whichever capital that cannot free itself from the complexes of history. By recycling the same accusations without bringing new evidence, those who hope to weaken this rapprochement risk trivializing their own discourse. For a repeated controversy without new facts inevitably ends up losing force. And this new attempt around Pegasus seems, once again, to illustrate this reality. Whether some like it or not, a Kingdom and a Republic can very well have excellent relations provided that the very foundations of a healthy relationship between two states are respected, namely: reciprocal respect, mutual trust and the recognition of each other's interests. And that is indeed the case here. By the way, one can well expect that on the eve of the state visit that His Majesty the King will soon make to the French Republic, one or other similar affairs will be recycled, by the same press, to parasitize and minimize the scope of what will then be concluded: A treaty that will not please everyone.

When Algiers’ propaganda runs up against reality: the absurdity of a regime that refuses facts 405

Aziz Daouda, 1 d.
- Politics -
2.3 min read.
The recent visit to Rabat by French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu marked a new stage in the strategic rapprochement between Morocco and France. It was a significant moment, but also a prelude to what will follow and to what is expected during His Majesty King Mohammed VI’s upcoming state visit to Paris: an unprecedented treaty in the history of the two countries. During this visit, the French head of government unequivocally reaffirmed that France’s position on the Sahara is now unchangeable. That phrase, heavy with meaning, indicates that this is no longer a temporary posture but a consciously assumed and lasting political choice. He notably recalled the historical origin of this position, referring to President Macron’s letter to His Majesty. As expected, and as always, this clarification sent a real shockwave through Algiers, where the authorities seem unable to accept that the diplomatic balance of power has profoundly changed. Even more revealing is the reaction of part of the Algerian press, largely subordinated to the military authorities. The publications of the Algerian press, such as Echorouk, offer a perfect illustration. The newspaper tries to make readers believe that the French prime minister deliberately avoided addressing the Sahara issue so as not to provoke Algeria. That presentation of the facts belongs more to propaganda than to journalism. From now on — and perhaps always — the Algerian press appears to think that before any action or relationship with Rabat, French officials must necessarily stop in Algiers and ask for instructions on what they should or should not say, on what they can or cannot do. In other words, the authorities in Algiers and their press act like what they were for more than a century: French departments supposedly entitled to weigh naturally on French policy. The reality, however, is quite different. The French position did not need to be renegotiated or repeated at every intervention. It had already been clearly expressed and was simply reaffirmed during this visit as being untouchable. When a state officially adopts a position, that position becomes the reference framework for all its diplomatic relations. By trying to manufacture a parallel narrative, Algerian media, official or not, now deceive only those who still want to believe them. They are forced to rewrite events to conceal an increasingly visible diplomatic isolation. This above all reveals that independence of mind and emancipation from the former colonizer have still not been achieved. One thinks France, one breathes France; like a jealous child, one whines even without cause and even when one is not concerned. One sleeps Morocco, one wakes Morocco, and like a person possessed one cannot free oneself from it. This constant flight from reality translates into a genuine political alienation. For decades, the Algerian authorities have made the Sahara question the heart of their foreign policy, to the point of sacrificing development, Maghreb integration, and even relations with several international partners. Today, despite the successive and numerous recognitions of the Kingdom’s sovereignty over its southern provinces and of Morocco’s autonomy plan by a growing number of countries, Algiers continues to deny the obvious. But History is rarely kind to those who refuse facts. Propaganda can delay awareness, but never prevent it. Speeches can be reshaped, press headlines rewritten, and analyses biased, but diplomatic reality always ends up asserting itself. By constantly trying to turn diplomatic defeats into imaginary victories, the authorities in Algiers lock themselves into a posture that borders on the ridiculous. To govern is to look at the world as it is, not as one wishes it to be. But beware, gentlemen: one truth remains immutable: propaganda can survive for a time, but it always gives way to facts in the end. Mr. Lecornu and his Moroccan counterpart, Aziz Akhannouch, did a good job. Fourteen agreements were signed across numerous fields, not just one. Views are converging, positions are clarifying, and relations between the two responsible countries—aware of their mutual interests—grow closer by the day. Mr. Lecornu said what he had to say and left very satisfied, accompanied by his twelve ministers who enjoyed the beauty of the capital of the Kingdom of the Sharifian: Rabat. Whether Algiers and its press approve or not.

Morocco–Canada, France–Morocco: when refereeing fuels doubt... 788

Aziz Daouda, 4 d.
- Politics - Sports -
2.7 min read.
The 2026 World Cup will go down as one of the most accomplished tournaments in the history of the Moroccan national team. The Atlas Lions confirmed their status as a top side by reaching the quarterfinals. Yet beyond the sporting performances, two matches continue to raise questions: the round of 16 against Canada and the quarterfinal against France. Not because Morocco lost due to refereeing, but because several important decisions left a feeling of inconsistency in the application of the laws of the game and the VAR protocol. A shower of cards against Canada Morocco won comfortably (3–0) against Canada. The result is beyond dispute. However, the match’s disciplinary management is puzzling. The referee handed out an unusually high number of yellow cards to Moroccan players, many already in the first half. This severity forced several Atlas Lions to temper their challenges, fearing a second booking that would mean dismissal. The issue is less the number of cards than their coherence. Comparable fouls were not always punished the same way depending on who committed them, feeding the impression of an unclear refereeing line. Even if this management did not change the final result, it affected the Moroccan players’ behavior in that match and in the next one. Was the referee, intentionally or not, preparing the team for the following game? Just a question. France–Morocco: the Rabiot hand controversy The real debate came a few days later, in the quarterfinal against France. The action that led to France’s first goal begins with a ball that replays show was not accidentally brushing Adrien Rabiot’s arm, but rather was deliberately directed by his hand. This point is essential. We know what conceding a goal perceived as unfair does, especially after holding out for more than an hour. Contrary to some analyses that present this hand as distant from the decisive action, it actually occurs at the very start of the offensive phase that directly leads to the goal. The Moroccan players nearest the play even stopped, convinced the referee should logically whistle for a handball. That is precisely where the controversy lies. Under the VAR protocol, when an infringement is committed by the attacking team during the possession phase that led to the goal, the video officials may intervene. They have a duty to intervene in a similar case. The whole world saw the hand, except those who had dozens of camera angles and flawless technology. The whole question, then, was to determine whether that hand constituted a sanctionable offense and whether it was part of the same possession phase. The referees decided otherwise. Move along, nothing to see here. VAR ultimately did not ask the referee to review the action, apparently judging there was no basis to intervene. This decision immediately provoked incomprehension from the Moroccan bench and many observers. The debate therefore concerns not only the existence of contact with the hand — visible on replays — but the interpretation of the protocol and the threshold used to trigger a VAR intervention. Is it applied inconsistently? In this case, it clearly was. As for the second goal, note the forcefulness with which two French defenders ripped the ball from the Moroccan player. That, too, contains elements that deserve review. Issa Diop received a card in this match for far less than that. A question of consistency more than favoritism There is no objective evidence today to claim Morocco was the target of organized favoritism toward its opponents. Such an accusation would require exhaustive statistical analysis of all refereeing decisions in the competition and other compelling elements. However, the two matches raise a far more solid question: that of consistency. It is entirely legitimate to ask why all the referees appointed for the France–Morocco match were of the same nationality. Odd, isn’t it? There was only one instance of this, and it occurred in that match. Why were some actions subject to long reviews while others, equally decisive, received no visible review? Some image consultations even led to goals being disallowed or corners being confirmed/overturned. If the referee watched and rewatched the penalty action awarded to France, perhaps it was because he tried to convince himself of the foul, whereas there was indeed simulation by the French player, known for that kind of behavior. Why do similar contacts sometimes seem to receive different treatment from one match to another? These questions do not concern Morocco alone. Throughout the 2026 World Cup, several teams voiced incomprehension over VAR decisions they considered uneven. For increased transparency VAR technology was introduced to reduce clear errors and strengthen confidence in refereeing. When it leaves decisions that are hard to understand, it produces the opposite effect: it fuels suspicion. Michel Platini went very far on this topic by claiming images could be manipulated to justify refereeing decisions. FIFA could respond to these questions by publishing, as happens in other sports, the exchanges between on-field referees and video officials, along with a report

France 24 and the Moroccan obsession: when part of the French press refuses to turn the page 785

Aziz Daouda, 4 d.
- Politics - Society -
2.7 min read.
As Paris and Rabat open a new chapter in their relationship, marked by a clearly stated political will to build an exceptional strategic partnership based on mutual trust, certain French media seem disturbed by this development, even incapable of accepting it. At the very moment when the governments of the two countries are multiplying agreements and displaying an unprecedented convergence – with Mr. Sébastien Lecornu and Mr. Aziz Akhannouch chairing the high bilateral commission in Rabat – France 24 chooses to bring the Pegasus affair back to the table, a case long since forgotten, as if nothing had changed, as if the denials, clarifications and diplomatic commitments had never existed. This approach raises questions about the reasons behind such a stance. Morocco has always firmly denied having spied on France or French officials. The Israeli company NSO Group, creator of the Pegasus software, has also disputed claims that Morocco possessed this tool for the operations attributed to it. Yet for France 24, the only credible sources remain Mediapart and the media consortium that carried these accusations. No critical distance, no perspective, no examination of the objections that have been raised since: a media “truth” seems to have been carved in stone, regardless of the facts or how they have evolved. Moreover, His Majesty King Mohammed VI had assured President Emmanuel Macron that these accusations were unfounded. In a diplomatic relationship, such guarantees are not trivial: they form the bedrock of friendships and help build trust between two states. Ignoring them amounts to denying the very essence of diplomacy and can be perceived as almost insulting. What is even more striking is the contrast between the historical significance of the agreements concluded during Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu’s visit and their near‑absence from France 24’s editorial coverage. The fourteen agreements signed in economic, security, energy, water‑management, cultural and other areas seem relegated to the background. The warm statements by the two heads of government, the prospects opened up by this rapprochement, the shared strategic interests: all of this appears secondary compared with the desire to resurrect a years‑old controversy. Well done, France 24. This editorial choice is not neutral. It reflects a vision of Morocco which, among a segment of the French media left – largely dominant within France 24 – remains trapped in old ideological reflexes. For this current, the monarchy is systematically associated with authoritarianism, injustice or dictatorship. Every institutional, social or economic success of the Kingdom is greeted with suspicion, while its progress is minimized or passed over in silence. It is nonetheless surprising that no emphasis is placed on the level of trade between the two countries, which has reached 15 billion euros, or, for example, on Morocco’s support for France in the fight against terrorism – the Bataclan affair is not so distant. For France 24, nothing matters compared with a ludicrous case invented from scratch, without the slightest proof. The paradox is striking. Those who lecture others on democracy often forget the dark zones of their own history. The French Revolution is glorified without always recalling the thousands of victims of the ensuing Terror. The Napoleonic Empire is celebrated despite the devastating wars it unleashed. As for colonization, its crimes were long downplayed, including by political currents that today present themselves as guardians of universal morality. Under these conditions, it is legitimate to ask: why such insistence on reviving a contested affair at the very moment when French‑Moroccan relations are experiencing a spectacular thaw? Why systematically ignore what brings the two countries together in order to highlight what divides them? By constantly favoring trials of intent over analysis, some media end up losing their credibility. Information then gives way to activism, and journalism is transformed into an instrument of ideological struggle – sometimes also into an instrument of blackmail… should we forget that? France 24 is funded by the French taxpayer and carries France’s voice abroad. In this capacity, one might expect it to offer balanced, rigorous coverage that respects the complexity of relations between two countries bound by history, geography and major common interests. When essential current events are obscured in favor of old, fallacious and disputed accusations, it becomes difficult not to see this as something more than a mere editorial choice. It feeds the perception that part of the French press refuses to admit that the Kingdom of Morocco is today a sovereign, influential and indispensable partner with which France has chosen to build a renewed and exceptional relationship, bathed in a climate of trust, shared understanding and mutual respect – whether France 24 likes it or not. By constantly seeking to cast doubt on this dynamic, certain media, including that one, give the impression of pursuing an objective that goes beyond information. Above all, they risk marginalizing themselves in the face of a diplomatic reality that is moving forward without them.

The Demiurge (Part 1 of 4) 1020

Tupan, 7 d.
Can a prison exist without walls? At first glance, the question seems absurd. We usually imagine a prison as a place enclosed by stone, steel, and locked doors. Yet some of the greatest philosophers and mystics in history imagined a different kind of imprisonment—one in which the prisoners never realize they are confined because they have never known anything else. This prison is built of perception instead of walls. It is sustained not by guards but by certainty. Its greatest strength is the conviction that there is nothing beyond it. This idea appears repeatedly throughout the history of Western thought. Plato described it through the image of prisoners chained inside a cave. Early Gnostic writers transformed it into the myth of an ignorant creator who mistakes himself for the highest God. Hermetic philosophers interpreted it as humanity's forgetfulness of the divine order that permeates the universe. Although these traditions are extremely different in their understanding of reality, they all begin with the same idea: human beings perceive only a fraction of what is real. There are several symbols created to express this intuition, but none has had a more notable history than the Demiurge. Over the course of a couple of thousand years, this figure evolved from a benevolent cosmic creator into the ruler of an incomplete world and, eventually, into one of the most enduring symbols of humanity's search for awakening. Understanding this transformation requires returning to the intellectual world of ancient Greece. Plato's Allegory of the Cave, presented in the Republic, is one of the foundational images of Western philosophy. A group of prisoners has spent its entire existence chained before a wall. Behind them burns a fire, and between the fire and the prisoners others carry objects whose shadows are projected onto the cave wall. Because the prisoners have never experienced anything else, they mistake these shadows for reality itself. One prisoner eventually escapes. The light outside initially blinds him, but as his vision adjusts, he discovers that the shadows were merely reflections of a richer and more complete world. When he returns to tell the others what he has seen, they reject his account. The familiar illusion feels safer than an unfamiliar truth. For Plato, this allegory is not a condemnation of the physical world. Rather, it illustrates the limitations of ordinary perception. Human beings naturally confuse appearances with reality until philosophical inquiry teaches them to distinguish between the two. Education, therefore, is not simply the accumulation of knowledge but a transformation of vision. This concern with order and intelligibility also appears in Plato's dialogue Timaeus, where he introduces the Demiurge. Contrary to many modern interpretations, Plato's Demiurge is neither evil nor jealous. He is a divine artisan who fashions the universe by bringing order to pre-existing chaos according to eternal Forms. He does not create matter from nothing, nor is he the supreme God. Instead, he is a craftsman whose work reflects wisdom and benevolence. The imperfections of the world arise because matter itself cannot perfectly embody eternal ideals. The universe is therefore neither a mistake nor a prison. It is the best possible expression of order within the limitations imposed by material existence. To know the world is to recognize the rational structure that underlies it. Several centuries later, however, a very different understanding of creation emerged. The religious movements that modern scholars collectively describe as Gnosticism flourished during the first centuries of the Common Era. Although they never formed a single unified religion, many shared the conviction that humanity possesses a forgotten spiritual origin. Their writings, rediscovered in 1945 among the Nag Hammadi manuscripts in Egypt, reveal cosmologies that strongly differ from both Jewish and Platonic accounts of creation. In the text known as the Apocryphon of John, the highest reality is a transcendent God beyond all description. From this source emanate divine beings known as Aeons, each expressing an aspect of the fullness of the divine, or Pleroma. One of these Aeons, Sophia—whose name means "Wisdom" in Greek—acts independently and brings forth an imperfect being: Yaldabaoth. Unlike Plato's Demiurge, Yaldabaoth is unaware of the higher reality from which he originated. Ignorant of his own limitations, he proclaims himself the only God and creates the material universe with the assistance of subordinate rulers known as the Archons. The tragedy of this story is not deliberate malice but profound ignorance. The creator mistakes his own perspective for absolute truth. This reversal transforms the meaning of creation. What Plato regarded as an ordered cosmos becomes, in many Gnostic texts, an incomplete world that conceals humanity's true origin. The material universe is not necessarily evil, but it is fundamentally limited because it reflects the understanding of an ignorant creator rather than the fullness of the transcendent God. The Archons reinforce this condition. They govern the structures of the material world and help maintain humanity's forgetfulness. Still, the Gnostic texts also insist that human beings contain something the Archons cannot fully control: the divine spark originating in the higher realms. While the body belongs to the created order, the deepest essence of the human person belongs to the Pleroma. Salvation therefore comes not through obedience to the creator of this world but through gnosis—the direct recognition of one's forgotten origin. This understanding marks one of the most profound shifts in the history of religious thought. The central problem is no longer simply ignorance of philosophical truth, as in Plato, but ignorance of one's own identity. Awakening becomes an act of remembrance.

The Silence of Gessime Yacine: an Image of Disillusion, but Also of Immense Hope 1018

Aziz Daouda, 7 d.
- Sports -
3.3 min read.
At the instant the referee blows the final whistle of the semi-final between Morocco and France, one image alone sums up all the pain of the Atlas Lion Cubs. Gessime Yacine, crouched on the ball, his face hidden beneath his shirt, remains motionless. He seeks neither the cameras nor consolation. He seems simply to be trying to understand what has just happened. No one will ever know what he tells himself, if he tells himself anything at all. No one can measure the depth of his pain. No one but him has lived such a moment — nor will anyone else live it: the boy who, in his first minutes at a World Cup, scored a saving goal for his country. Moments like that are unique. This photograph is not merely one of defeat. It tells the weight of an extraordinary journey that was abruptly halted by a France side that was more experienced, deeper, and better prepared — a selection, some would say. For many, the match left a taste of incompletion. Morocco, so enterprising from the start of the tournament, appeared unrecognizable. Yet to reduce this performance to a simple underachievement would be to forget the context in which this team was built. First, there is the structural gap between the two squads. France has an impressive pool of players competing at the highest level in Europe, to the point of being able to leave several European champions on the bench. By contrast, Morocco fielded a largely renewed group after a disappointing AFCON, the product of a changing locker room and entrusted to a new coach only a few weeks before the World Cup. Preparation time was extremely short. Barely fifteen days to implement a game plan, create automatic patterns, and build a true collective with a majority of young players who, for some, had never played together. Many play for modest clubs, and some have limited minutes in their domestic leagues. The path was far from smooth. In the draw Morocco found itself in a difficult half of the bracket — to put it mildly. The fact that three countries hosted the tournament influenced the group composition... and then there were the actions of the master of ceremonies who places certain teams so they won't meet until the semi-finals... That too must not be forgotten nor its impact downplayed. From the start, Morocco faced Brazil, before going on to play only knockout matches. Scotland, the Netherlands — probably one of the best Dutch generations in recent years — then Canada, a host nation driven by a strong desire for revenge after its 2022 elimination, with a coach who pushes his players to an almost unbelievable level of aggressiveness. The Moroccans even had to go to penalties against the Dutch. It's exhausting physically and mentally; a lot of nervous energy is thus expended. Long travel distances added to that. More than 11,000 kilometers covered during the tournament represent a real physiological constraint. Conditioning specialists acknowledge that transcontinental travel, time-zone changes, and long hours on planes affect the legs and recovery, especially when the time between matches is short. Everyone knows how swollen our feet can be after a long flight. Finally, refereeing decisions also fuel the debates. Why were all the referees Argentine for France–Morocco? Can an Argentine referee overturn another, knowing they will encounter each other back home soon after the World Cup... Strange, no? How do we explain the tears of a linesman who embraced Bounou? Many Moroccan observers — and not only Moroccans — contest several incidents: the penalty awarded to France, the card shown to Issa Diop for slight contact with Mbappé (an excellent actor, as everyone knows), or the action before the first French goal, certainly contentious because of Rabiot’s clear hand at the origin of the play. He did guide the ball with his hand before passing it forward. As in any major competition, these decisions will no doubt continue to inspire diverging interpretations. However, they alone do not explain the outcome. The Moroccans had only one shot on target — a very tame one — and it came in the 86th minute. The coach himself will see some of his tactical choices questioned. His formation surprised many. Had it enabled a win against France, it would likely have been hailed as a masterstroke. Football works that way: results often shape the judgment of decisions. Beyond this elimination remains a broader question often voiced by a segment of supporters: do emerging footballing nations enjoy the same environment and level of protection as the traditional powers of world football? This question far exceeds Morocco’s case and will continue to fuel debate, without any definitive answer possible. One certainty, however, stands out. The image of Gessime Yacine, his face hidden in his jersey, does not symbolize failure. It symbolizes the immense demand this generation places on itself. These young players are not merely mourning a lost semi-final; they are mourning an opportunity they believed was within their reach. Gessime is a world champion in his age category. No one can take that from him. Moroccan football emerges stronger from this World Cup. Despite preparation difficulties, a lack of collective experience, and a path strewn with obstacles, this team showed it can compete with the best nations. It even improved its ranking during this very particular World Cup. Gessime Yacine’s tears are those of a competitor who refused to stop there. Perhaps it is this image more than the final score that will remain in memory — and certainly should remain: that of a young player broken today, whose determination could feed the greatest victories of tomorrow. 2030 is not so far away. He will be only 24. As for those who indulge in insults, slander, disinformation, or outlandish analyses designed to exploit raw emotions simply to elevate themselves on airwaves and social networks, we know they will turn their coats at the next victory. Their moment is passing and will inevitably pass. Let us not forget: this Moroccan team, its coach, and its staff are quarter-finalists.

The French prime minister in Rabat: Culmination of a relationship being redefined? 1032

Aziz Daouda, 7 d.
On 15–16 July, France's prime minister, Sébastien Lecornu, will make his first official trip abroad since his appointment when he visits Rabat. It is important to stress that this is his first trip overseas. Until Emmanuel Macron, every newly inaugurated French president began their term with a visit to Rabat; Macron is today the sole exception. This first visit, even if it comes ten years later, can be seen as a corrective to what should not have happened. Accompanied by a large ministerial delegation, he will meet with Prime Minister Aziz Akhannouch and many other senior officials of the Kingdom. Marked by the signing of several cooperation agreements, the visit underscores both countries’ desire to place their partnership on a new footing. To understand the significance of the trip, one must go back several centuries. Relations between Morocco and France did not begin with the 1912 protectorate. They trace their roots to the first diplomatic contacts between the Moroccan and French monarchies in the 16th century. Rulers of the two kingdoms already exchanged commercially and diplomatically, driven by economic interests as well as the broader geopolitical balances of the Mediterranean. Under Moulay Ismaïl and Louis XIV the relationship became more structured. Moroccan ambassadors were received at Versailles and Meknes, while commercial exchanges developed. Despite periods of tension, the two monarchies learned to know and cooperate with one another. The protectorate established in 1912 opened a more complex chapter. The weakening of the Sharifian Empire — which had missed the industrial revolution — combined, of course, with European colonial ambitions, was the main cause. France contributed to the modernization of part of Morocco’s infrastructure, administration and economy, but this period also represented a colonial domination against which Moroccans fought in a unique solidarity, with both the people and their monarch on the same side, until Mohammed V’s return from exile and the Kingdom’s independence in 1956. Independence did not sever the ties, however. On the contrary, under Mohammed V and then Hassan II, the two states built a privileged relationship based on common interests. Morocco never fell into any kind of hatred and never turned the 44 years of the protectorate into a permanent grievance. And yet the Kingdom had reasons to do so. That chapter of history had serious consequences for the country’s territorial integrity. Its geography, and more than that, remains affected today. At independence, France became the primary economic partner, a major investor and a favored destination for hundreds of thousands of Moroccans. University, cultural, security and military cooperation took on exceptional dimensions. With the accession to the throne of His Majesty King Mohammed VI, the relationship gradually evolved toward a more balanced partnership. Morocco asserted diplomatic sovereignty and diversified its alliances worldwide while maintaining close ties with Paris. In recent years, with the arrival of French leaders — notably from the left or linked to parties sometimes influenced by an anti-monarchy press and not always familiar with the Kingdom — relations experienced many turbulences: diplomatic misunderstandings, visa issues, and divergences over the Western Sahara file. But the two capitals progressively chose dialogue and pragmatism. The turning point came when France indicated that it saw the Sahara’s future only within the sovereignty of the Kingdom, opening a new phase in bilateral relations. Since then, political exchanges have accelerated dramatically, official visits have multiplied, and cooperation in security, economic, energy and industrial fields has gained fresh momentum. Sébastien Lecornu’s visit fits precisely within that logic. It is not only intended to consolidate gains but also to prepare a new stage of the partnership. The stakes include investment, industry, infrastructure, the energy transition, security, artificial intelligence, transport, migration management and cooperation in Africa. It is also clear that the visit paves the way for the historic state visit of His Majesty the King to France. Today Morocco appears as an indispensable partner for France on the African continent and in the Mediterranean space. For its part, France remains a leading economic and technological actor to support the Kingdom’s ambitions. Beyond the diplomatic rapprochement, economic exchanges attest to the strength of ties between the two countries. In 2024, bilateral trade in goods between Morocco and France exceeded €15 billion, making France the Kingdom’s second trading partner after Spain, accounting for nearly 21% of Morocco’s trade with the European Union. Moroccan exports to France are mainly vehicles and automotive components, electrical equipment, agricultural and agri-food products, textiles and clothing, and aeronautical products. Conversely, France exports industrial equipment, transport equipment, pharmaceuticals, capital goods, chemicals and high-value technologies to Morocco. Notably, the trade balance in goods is now slightly in surplus for Morocco (€1.2 billion), illustrating the rise of its industrial base and export capacities. Beyond trade, France remains one of the largest foreign investors in Morocco, while Moroccan companies are progressively strengthening their presence on the French market, confirming the shift toward a more balanced economic partnership. The history of Franco‑Moroccan relations shows that they have always been able to weather crises without ever breaking off. They have adapted to world changes, moving from a relationship between monarchies to a relationship between two sovereign states bound by history, exceptional human proximity and converging strategic interests. The French prime minister’s visit to Rabat is thus far more than a diplomatic episode. It symbolizes the will to build a renewed relationship, founded on mutual respect, shared interests and a common vision of the challenges of the 21st century.

Africa, the true beating heart of world football... 1026

Aziz Daouda, 7 d.
- Sports -
1.5 min read.
Numbers sometimes carry more weight than speeches. At the 2026 World Cup, nearly one out of every four players is African or of African origin. This simple fact is enough to measure the immense contribution of the continent to global football. Of the 1,248 players taking part in this edition, around 333 are African or of African origin, nearly 27% of all participants. This total includes the 260 players from the ten African teams that qualified and 73 players of African origin who play for European, North American or other national teams. This massive presence confirms that Africa is no longer just a talent pool: today, it helps shape the global game. For a long time, Africa was seen as a land of promise. Today, it is a land of certainty. Its academies train exceptional players, its leagues bring to light ever‑younger talents, and its diaspora shines in the biggest national teams on the planet. Major footballing nations (France, England, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, among others) rely heavily on players with African roots who have become key members of their national sides. This phenomenon can be explained by a double success. On the one hand, African training centres produce top‑level talents every year. On the other, African diasporas established in Europe and elsewhere allow many young people to grow up in high‑performance football environments while preserving a strong African cultural heritage and solid ties with their countries of origin. The 2026 World Cup is therefore more than a tournament dominated by the traditional powers: it is also Africa’s World Cup, that of its immense reservoir of talent and its diaspora, which together account for nearly one‑third of the players present. Without players from the continent or its diaspora, the level of many leading national teams would be profoundly different. Modern football increasingly speaks with an African accent. This reality must be a wake‑up call for African leaders. If the continent produces so many talents capable of shining all over the world, it also has the potential to build stronger leagues, modern infrastructures and clubs able to compete with the best international benchmarks. The talent is there; it now needs an environment worthy of its immense value. The 2026 World Cup symbolizes a shift: Africa is no longer a mere reservoir of players, it has become a force that shapes football history. The twenty‑first century of football will, to a large extent, be African—not by chance, but because the continent has what football needs most: an inexhaustible pool of talent, creativity, resilience and passion. One political question remains: is the FIFA system and are international bodies ready to turn this reality into greater representation and more opportunities for African teams? That depends on interests often far removed from the game itself.

Benguerir in 2045: How UM6P Turned Morocco into a Global Innovation Powerhouse 1607

Aziz Daouda, 10 d.
- Politics - Science - Society -
2.7 min read.
Last night I had a dream. A wonderful dream. It is 2045: the center of gravity for innovation has shifted. It has moved to the Kingdom of Morocco, an exceptional North African country. When CEOs of multinationals, tech investors and government officials try to understand the new dynamics of the global innovation economy, one name keeps coming up: Benguerir, Morocco. Less than two hours from Casablanca and about an hour from Marrakech, linked to both by an ultra‑fast train, this medium‑sized town — once a bus stop where travelers stopped for skewers and mint tea — became in twenty years one of the planet’s major technology hubs. Even more surprising: by 2045 it is regarded as the leading innovation ecosystem on the African continent. At the heart of this transformation sits Mohammed VI Polytechnic University (UM6P), an institution envisioned by King Mohammed VI himself. This success did not spring from a single public program or from traditional industrial policy. It resulted from an ambitious strategy: to make the university the central engine of Morocco’s economic, technological and entrepreneurial development. The era of infrastructure is over For decades many countries tried to reproduce Silicon Valley by pouring money into technoparks, industrial zones or incubators. Most failed. UM6P understood early on: innovation does not arise primarily from buildings. It arises from interactions. The most successful ecosystems rest on an exceptional density of relationships between researchers, entrepreneurs, investors, large firms and public decision‑makers. Silicon Valley is above all a concentration of interconnected talent. The designers of Benguerir 2045 grasped this reality. After hurrying to build a real tech park, they created an environment where the boundaries between university, business and market gradually disappeared. The entrepreneurial university as an economic model The first revolution was cultural. From the mid‑2020s, UM6P — never intended as a conventional university that separates teaching, research and economic activity — implemented several measures: - Researchers were encouraged to found companies. - PhD students received training in entrepreneurship. - Students were allowed to replace some academic projects with startup creations. And naturally, by 2045: - Over 40% of tenured faculty hold equity in at least one innovative company. - Nearly one student in five starts a company before graduating. This permeability between research and market accelerated the conversion of scientific discoveries into commercialized innovations. The reform that changed the game The real turning point was institutional. From 2027, following the September 2026 elections, Morocco enacted a series of reforms fully integrating its economy into global flows of capital, knowledge and talent: - Progressive removal of administrative barriers to international investment. - Simplification of financial transfers. - Modernization of the regulatory framework. In short, a favorable environment for innovation was established. For the first time, a startup created in Benguerir could raise funds in London, sell to Singapore, recruit in Nairobi and invest in Brazil with the same ease as an American or European company. Geography ceased to be a constraint. The market became global from day one. From an export economy to a creative economy Early‑21st‑century Morocco based its competitiveness on industrial exports, agriculture, phosphates and infrastructure. Morocco in 2045 rests on a different logic: value now derives primarily from intellectual property. Patents, software, algorithms, biotechnologies, advanced materials and digital platforms now account for a major share of generated wealth. The country is no longer merely a successful manufacturing site. It has become a place of design, a place where tomorrow’s world is imagined. Africa as the laboratory of the future UM6P chose not to copy Silicon Valley. It focused on Africa’s major challenges: - Water - Energy - Agriculture - Health - Education - Climate resilience - Mobility The innovations developed for Africa proved relevant to much of the world facing similar problems. Solutions imagined in Benguerir are now used in Latin America, South Asia and the Middle East. Global talent magnet By 2045: - More than a hundred nationalities are represented on the UM6P campus. - American researchers collaborate with Nigerian entrepreneurs. - Indian AI specialists work with Senegalese agronomists. - European investors finance startups founded by Moroccan students. This diversity became a strategic asset. Talent moves to where opportunities are greatest. Benguerir succeeded in becoming one of those places. Lessons for policymakers The Benguerir 2045 experience shows three conditions necessary to build a global innovation ecosystem: - Put the university at the center of national economic strategy. - Encourage free movement of ideas, talent and capital. - Create a culture that rewards experimentation more than conformity. The true engine of innovation remains the quality of human interactions. From periphery to center For a long time Africa was seen as a market of the future. In 2045, thanks to Benguerir’s initiatives, it has become a territory of creation. UM6P has shown that an African university can transform knowledge into companies, jobs, technologies and global influence. The nations that will dominate the 21st‑century economy will not be those with the largest natural resources, but those that succeed in turning knowledge into innovation and innovation into prosperity. And in that global competition, Morocco chose to start from its university to build its future. Silicon Valley pointed the way. Benguerir invented its own. 2045 is less than 20 years away… One of the professors mentioned above has even won the Nobel Prize… Let us dream.

Artificial intelligence: Morocco faces its rendezvous with History 1995

Aziz Daouda, 14 d.
- Politics - Science - Business -
2.3 min read.
History can be ruthless to nations that miss major technological turning points. Two centuries ago, the steam engine and the Industrial Revolution profoundly reshaped the global balance of power. The countries that still dominate the world economy today are, for the most part, those that quickly adopted industrial innovations, developed them, and turned them into instruments of economic, military and cultural power. By contrast, states that stayed outside that transformation gradually lost their strategic autonomy. The Sherifian Empire, like much of the non-Western world, suffered the consequences of this historical delay. The inability to fully enter the Industrial Revolution contributed to a progressive weakening that culminated in the establishment of a protectorate at the start of the 20th century. Today, history seems to be repeating itself in another form. Artificial intelligence, robotics, quantum computing and advanced technologies are producing a transformation as profound as that caused by the steam engine in the 19th century. A new global hierarchy is being built before our eyes. The United States, China, India, South Korea and Gulf countries are investing tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars in research, digital infrastructure and tech start-ups. Meanwhile, Morocco risks being content with the role of spectator. Yet the warning signs have been known for a long time. More than ten years ago, a decision was made to raise scientific research spending to 2% of the national budget. That ambition responded to a strategic necessity: to prepare the country for the technological challenges of the 21st century. It is, however, clear that this goal was never achieved. And in the current global competition, even a 2% effort now appears insufficient. Countries that want to be players in AI devote considerable resources to research, innovation and talent development. Morocco should probably aim for much more ambitious investment levels, closer to 5% of public spending, if it truly wants a place in the new knowledge economy. Perhaps most worrying is the silence in political debate. While the election campaign seems already underway, few political parties place scientific research, innovation or artificial intelligence at the heart of their national programs. Discussions often focus on daily urgencies, which are legitimate, but the question of technological sovereignty is largely absent from stated priorities. Populism and the mediocrity of some so-called politicians are far removed from this issue. Some would even like to take us back to the Stone Age. Yet the stakes far exceed mere economic modernization. This is about preserving the country’s strategic independence. Nations that master tomorrow’s technologies will control value chains, financial flows, defense systems, critical infrastructure and, increasingly, decision-making capabilities themselves. But financial investment alone will not be enough. Morocco must also undertake a deep reform of its regulatory environment. In a world where innovation is measured in milliseconds, and soon in nanoseconds, many Moroccan entrepreneurs still face long, complex and sometimes discouraging administrative procedures. Constraints tied to capital transfers, international payments, technology subscriptions, investment in digital platforms or participation in global innovation ecosystems often pose major obstacles. The regulatory framework inherited from another era must be rethought. Without abandoning the imperatives of control and transparency, it is essential to adapt the mechanisms of the foreign exchange authority to the realities of the global digital economy. When a young entrepreneur in Casablanca must wait for authorizations to access tools or international markets, while rivals in Bangalore, Shenzhen or Dubai operate in real time, the competitive handicap becomes obvious. The battle for artificial intelligence is not only technological; it is also administrative, regulatory and cultural. Morocco nevertheless has considerable assets: a talented youth, universities in transformation, recognized political stability and a privileged geographic position between Europe and Africa. But these assets will only yield results if supported by a clear national vision, massive investments and sustained political will. The appointment before us today is probably the most important since independence. The country already paid the price of technological delay two centuries ago. History rarely offers a second chance. The opportunity represented by artificial intelligence today must not be missed. Because in the world taking shape, nations that do not innovate will depend on those that do. And tomorrow’s technological dependence could become the most subtle, but also the most enduring, form of loss of sovereignty.

The real task for Morocco: rebuilding trust... 2178

Aziz Daouda, 15 d.
- Politics - Society -
3.1 min read.
As elections approach, debates often focus on economic growth, employment, investment, social protection or large infrastructure projects. All these subjects are essential. Yet behind each of them lies a more fundamental, deeper — and perhaps more urgent — question: that of trust. Populists, great masters of deceit, understand this very well. Their popularity and success are inversely proportional to the level of trust. They overplay and excel at the role of victim or at offering simple, easy solutions, thereby sowing doubt among citizens and eroding their trust capital. Nihilists also profit and add another layer. The citizen who doubts and loses confidence becomes an easy mark. Some politicians, through irresponsibility, naivety, incompetence or clumsiness, also contribute — by their narratives — to eroding the trust capital in the social project and, beyond that, in the institutions themselves. It is therefore legitimate today to ask the question with the utmost seriousness. The near and long‑term future of the country and of future generations is at stake. And yet Mohamed Ouahbi and his teammates offer us a new dynamic, a new value: self‑confidence, trust in who we are simply. How do you explain being so dominated for one half and then finding the resources to overcome the handicap, transform yourselves and score three times? What if the real task for Morocco in the coming years were simply that of trust? Trust is an invisible capital but one that is extremely essential. It does not appear in any budget and cannot be measured in kilometers or billions invested. Yet it constitutes the pillar of any collective success. Hakimi, Díaz, Talbi, Mazraoui, Bounou, Ounahi, Rahimi and the others demonstrated that to us. Without it, the best public policies produce limited results. With it, even the most complex challenges become surmountable. Today, it must be acknowledged that Moroccans primarily place their trust in the royal institution, which remains, for a large majority of citizens, the main anchor of stability, continuity and hope. This reality represents a considerable strength for the country. But what about trust in other institutions? Do citizens fully trust their health system? When families still have to turn to the private sector despite financial difficulties, the question deserves to be asked. Do they trust their education system? When many parents try by all means to enroll their children in private schools, sometimes at great sacrifice, this often reflects doubt about the public school’s ability to deliver the hoped‑for social mobility. Do they trust the judiciary, the administrations, political parties, local authorities, or certain local products? Again, answers are nuanced and vary according to individual experiences. It would be unfair and incorrect to generalize. Morocco has made remarkable, even exceptional, progress in many areas. Infrastructure has been modernized, public services are digitizing, social coverage is expanding, universities are multiplying, hospitals are developing and many civil servants carry out their duties with competence and dedication. But despite these advances, a diffuse feeling of mistrust remains present in part of society. Even the most optimistic citizens can sometimes doubt their future or that of their children, while no nation can sustainably build its development on distrust. Economic history shows this: successful countries are often those where citizens trust their institutions, their rules and their prospects for the future. The Nordic countries are a frequently cited example. High levels of trust in the state, schools, justice and public services encourage respect for rules, civic engagement and acceptance of reform. In Asia, countries like South Korea built their economic transformation not only on investment and education, but also on strong collective adherence to a shared national project. Conversely, when trust erodes the consequences are multiple: civic disengagement, electoral abstention, brain drain, an informal economy, corruption and retreat into individual survival strategies at the expense of the collective project. Trust creates and nurtures a sense of belonging. It makes people want to participate, to build, to invest, to share and to stay. A young person who believes in their country will be more inclined to develop their project there. An entrepreneur who trusts the institutions will invest more. A citizen who believes in the fairness of the system will more readily accept their fiscal and civic duties. The challenge is therefore immense. It is not merely a question of communicating more or multiplying slogans and lies, as some do. Trust is built through tangible results. It is built when public schools offer the same opportunities to all. It is built when public hospitals treat with efficiency and dignity. It is built when competence is rewarded and recognized. It is built when public services respond quickly to citizens’ needs. It is built when officials are held accountable and promises are kept. On the eve of the elections, political parties would do well to place this question at the heart of their platforms. Beyond sectoral promises, Moroccans expect a contract of trust. The real issue is not only which project will be presented to citizens. It is whether citizens will believe enough in that project to commit to it. Morocco has considerable assets: its monarchy, its stability, its youth, its geographic position, its infrastructure, its strategic vision and its international ambitions. But to turn these assets into lasting power, it must strengthen that invisible bond that ties citizens to their country. The task of rebuilding trust is surely the hardest of all. But it is also the most decisive. For when a people gains or regains confidence in themselves, in their institutions and in their future, they become capable of achieving what once seemed impossible. It is at that price that the Kingdom will recover its long‑dormant greatness. Thanks to our national team for reminding us that trust is the most precious capital.

"Send Them Back": the day the European Parliament applauded xenophobia... 2305

Aziz Daouda, 16 d.
- Politics - Society - Lifestyle -
2.5 min read.
There are sometimes images that alone sum up an era. That of Members of the European Parliament, elected to defend the founding values of the European Union, chanting in chorus "Send them back!" at the end of the vote authorising member states to expel migrants to centres located outside European territory will remain one of the most disturbing. This slogan, borrowed from the bluntest vocabulary of nationalist movements, goes far beyond the fight against illegal immigration. It does not only target people in an irregular situation. In the imagination of part of the European far right, it designates everyone unfortunate enough to be different: Africans, Arabs, Amazighs, Latinos, Muslims, refugees or simply foreigners. In a few words, a vision of Europe expresses itself: a closed, suspicious Europe obsessed with the purity of its borders. The worst thing is not that this rhetoric exists — it always has and will probably continue to exist. The worst thing is that it now finds an echo inside the European Parliament chamber, with the complicity of traditional right‑wing parties that, out of electoral opportunism, conviction or perhaps simple stupidity, choose to echo far‑right themes rather than fight them. Fine. "Send them back," they say. Let us therefore push this intellectual exercise to its conclusion. Send them all back. Send back the nurses who came from Africa and keep European hospitals running. Send back the care assistants who look after the growing number of elderly people, many of them impoverished. Send back the construction workers, bus drivers, cleaners, agricultural workers who harvest the fruits and vegetables. Send back the couriers who feed those many people unable to do their own shopping. Send back the engineers, doctors, researchers and students who enliven universities and hospitals. Send back the foreign entrepreneurs who create businesses and pay taxes. Send back the footballers and athletes who bring joy to young people and to nations. Send them all back, these "undesirables", and find elsewhere, on another planet, those who will make Europe run tomorrow. The demographic reality is merciless, members of Parliament. Europe is visibly ageing. Its fertility rate is below the generational replacement threshold in almost all countries. Former suppliers of labour and brains in Eastern Europe have become more prosperous; their inhabitants prefer to stay at home. The working population is shrinking while retirees are increasing. Health systems, pensions and public services already rely heavily on workers from immigration. All the major international institutions remind us: without immigration, large parts of the European economies will lack labour in the coming decades. Not only are migrants not an economic burden, but they are often part of the solution to the demographic — and therefore economic — crisis threatening the continent. The irony is striking: those whom some present as "undesirables" have precisely become indispensable to the daily functioning of your societies. Sending them back en masse would weaken hospitals, transport, agriculture, construction, catering and a multitude of already strained sectors. The human and economic consequences would be considerable, sometimes disastrous. Europe also seems to forget another historical truth. For centuries, Europeans left their continent by the millions to seek a better life elsewhere: to the Americas, Australia or Africa. More recently still, millions of Europeans emigrated to escape wars, dictatorships or poverty. Today, the continent that long produced migrants wants to forbid others from following the same path. This paradox reveals a troubling moral crisis. The European Union likes to recall that it is founded on human rights, dignity and solidarity. These principles should not disappear as soon as the subject is immigration. Controlling borders is a sovereign right. Fighting people‑smuggling networks is a necessity. Organising legal migration is essential. But turning human beings into scapegoats and echoing slogans of hatred is a political and ethical failure. When elected representatives applaud the cry "Send them back", they do not lower the people targeted. They surely demean the institution they represent. A democracy is judged by how it treats its minorities, its foreigners and the most vulnerable. If the European Parliament becomes a platform where xenophobia is applauded, then the very idea of Europe is in danger. Yes, send them back then... and then see who will treat your sick, build your housing, harvest your fruit, finance your pensions and keep an economy — already condemned by ageing to a shortage of labour — alive. On that day, Europe may discover that those it called "undesirables" had, in reality, become indispensable. And it may be too late to call them back. Their countries will also prosper sooner or later — as Ibn Khaldun reminded us.

Beyond the victory: Morocco won far more than a match... 2311

Aziz Daouda, 16 d.
- Society - Sports -
3.5 min read.
Yes, Morocco beat the Netherlands. The result will remain in the statistics, but it would be reductive to see it as merely a sporting victory. Some matches tell more than a score. They reveal an identity, a culture, values, a way of thinking and behaving in the face of adversity. This one belongs to that category. The first lesson is one of character strength paired with great humility. Achraf Hakimi and company dominated their opponent, created opportunities but failed to convert them. A shame. Many teams would have begun to doubt, to rush, to lose their shape and their lucidity. They continued to believe in their football, with patience and conviction, until the final whistle. It was a match of resilience and confidence. That ability to never give up is one of this team’s greatest strengths. The draw had not been kind to the Moroccans. Being placed in the second pot would take its toll. They had to start the tournament against a Brazil galvanized by its history; then face a revenge-seeking Scotland; and finish with Haiti, who had nothing left to lose. And then, bam — they had to travel far. Cross the United States from north to south and land on the other side of the border, in Mexico, to face one of football’s greatest powers. The country of Neeskens, Cruyff, Van Basten and so many others. The country where a certain Ștefan Kovács, called Pisti, invented total football, possession football. He had come from Cluj-Napoca, in Romanian Transylvania, to coach Steaua Bucharest before winning two European titles with Ajax... That’s where it all began. His imprint is now everywhere in the world. One day a great stadium should bear his name somewhere. FIFA should think about it. He revolutionized football and made it more spectacular and more colorful. Brazil — Morocco and the Netherlands respectively 5th, 6th and 7th in the FIFA rankings. The second lesson is managerial courage. First, the courage to trust Mohamed Ouahbi. A young coach with almost no record. He came to give the country its first-ever U20 world title. Not a small feat: a world title for the Kingdom of Morocco, and now he is well on his way to a second and is doing everything to achieve it. Mohamed, raised in Moroccan culture, steeped in the country’s values, bearer of the history of migration and its challenges, is a fine technician endowed with composure and steadiness under all circumstances: exactly what is needed for a Moroccan team. And then the young coach performs wonders in strategy, match planning and tactics. He does not hesitate to throw into the deep end, at a crucial moment, players born in 2005, entrusting them with responsibilities that many coaches would have reserved for older, more experienced players. Trusting youth is never an easy bet. But great teams, great countries, are precisely built on the ability to prepare the future without sacrificing the present. By giving these young talents their chance, the coach sends them a powerful message: merit matters more than age or any other consideration. What an example for the country’s managers, for Moroccan political parties, for Morocco as a whole. Trust in our talented young people, full of goodwill and love for the country. The feeling of belonging, a nation’s capital, has never been so strong and so manifest. It is the message of these young people who came out at dawn, fervent, shouting their pride and joy at being born Moroccan. This victory is also that of a culture of challenge. For several years, Moroccan football has refused to be content with existing. It wants to compete with the best nations. That ambition is found in every duel, every sprint, every contested ball. The Lions of the Atlas no longer play with the inferiority complex of small teams; they play with the certainty that they can beat any opponent. Another major lesson: resilience. Being behind on the scoreboard without abandoning one’s game plan is the mark of great teams. Too often, a team that concedes a goal abandons its principles in favor of long balls or disordered play. Morocco remained true to its identity. The players continued to build, to press, to create, convinced that their football would eventually be rewarded. This fidelity to the collective project is surely the most beautiful proof of maturity. At the heart of this success is also an inspired coach. His calm on the bench contrasts with the intensity on the field. He transmits neither nervousness nor panic. On the contrary, he exudes a communicative serenity that reassures his players in difficult moments. Great teams often have a great coach, not only for tactical skills, but also for the ability to instill unshakable confidence. Finally, this team is strong because it is deeply Moroccan. Behind the technical performances lies a culture: one of solidarity, respect, family and friendship. A culture where humility always accompanies ambition, where humanism remains a fundamental value, where each person accepts running for the other before thinking of themselves. This cohesion is not improvised; it is built around shared values. At the final whistle, the players did not hesitate for an instant to go and console their opponents. What an image. At its core, this victory over the Netherlands far exceeds the realm of sport. It demonstrates that a united collective, carried by a clear vision, solid values and unshakable confidence, can overturn the most difficult situations. It is a lesson that goes beyond football. It is a lesson in management, leadership and society. But above all, this victory is the fruit of a vision born in 2008, when His Majesty the King, may God assist him, addressed the famous letter to the sport conference and the day he inaugurated the Mohammed VI Academy. That was 28 March 2010. For several years now, Morocco has been investing massively in its football: modern infrastructures, development academies, professionalization of clubs and a long-term vision. The results the national team is reaping today are not a matter of chance. They are the logical consequence of a project built with patience, rigor and ambition. But beyond football itself, Morocco did not just win a match. It confirmed that it now possesses a champion’s identity and it won hearts. All over the world, football fans have vibrated for this team, waved Moroccan flags and worn shirts in the country’s colors. Immeasurable.

Morocco–Canada: heroic qualification, acrobatic refereeing and a whistle with variable geometry... 2446

Aziz Daouda, 17 d.
- Sports -
3.2 min read.
There are matches won by talent, others by mentality, and still others despite the referee. Morocco, against Canada, achieved the full set. In this World Cup round of 16, the Lions of the Atlas not only had to face one of the tournament’s most aggressive teams — that day even more so than before — they also had to cope with a referee whose speed at whipping out cards seemed less an act of sporting justice than a Pavlovian reflex whenever a white shirt entered his field of vision. Good thing they weren’t wearing red, those brave Moroccans... The tally is almost poetic in its absurdity: a rough Canadian team, committed to excess, sometimes plainly brutal, and yet it’s the Moroccans who come away with the largest collection of yellow cards. Six for Morocco, three for Canada. One would think that in the realm of the whistle, the guilty party is not the one who deals the blows but the one who has the bad taste to receive them — and even worse if he dares protest. Even if he happens to be the team captain. The referee, it must be admitted, had a real talent: drawing a card faster than his shadow whenever a Moroccan player dared commit the “unforgivable”: a slightly forceful tackle, a protest, sometimes even a single look too intent. It was like Lucky Luke, but in FIFA refereeing: the yellow seemed to appear before the foul was even finished. By contrast, when it came to blows aimed at the Moroccans, the cowboy suddenly went near-sighted, contemplative, almost philosophical. Certain brutalities were clearly imperceptible to the referee’s eye. Hakimi’s case alone deserves a small chapter in the manual of football misunderstandings. An obvious assault, a gesture that, in a normally governed world, would have at least called for a red card, or failing that a stern rebuke. But no. The referee saw nothing. Or, more precisely, he did not wish to see. The same scenario for Mazraoui, also the victim of a rough treatment that the man with the whistle filed under minor incidents. One imagines he must have been saving his severity for graver offences, such as, say... celebrating a goal with too much enthusiasm. And then there was that delightful, almost surreal scene: Morocco’s second goal scored by Azzedine Ounahi. A clear, quick, radiant action, executed with such inevitability that it seemed to wrench from the referee a strange gesture, like an involuntary admission. Arms raised, looking apologetic, he seemed to be telling the world — and probably the Canadians, or perhaps the sponsors, if there were any — “Excuse me, I really tried everything, but this time I couldn’t find a way to stop the play.” Perhaps that is the most beautiful involuntary tribute paid to Moroccan football: even the referee, for an instant, appeared disarmed by the beauty of the move. Should we therefore sink into bar-room conspiracy theories and imagine FIFA in the shadows, handing out scripts like a TV producer? Let’s be serious. Or rather, let’s remain reasonably ironic. There is no need to doubt the entire institution to question certain appointments. Canada belongs to the Commonwealth, the referee was English: enough, at minimum, to raise a few eyebrows. Add to that the eternal condescension of a certain footballing establishment toward “small teams” that have the fault of not respecting the prewritten hierarchy, and you have a cocktail troubling enough to fuel café conversations for years. Of course, we will probably never know. Referees, like diplomats, often take their secrets to the grave. Everyone will keep their certainties, suspicions, denials and silences. But in truth, the essential thing lies elsewhere. It lies in that immense qualification, won not only against a rough opponent but against a context that was no red carpet. It lies in the technical mastery of an Ounahi, the solidity of an Amrabat, the class of a Hakimi, the courage of a Mazraoui, the inspiration of a Bounou, and the collective intelligence of a group that kept its composure where others would have lost their heads. Because this Moroccan team does not merely play football: it tells a story. It tells of a country that is rising, that respects itself, that looks forward. It tells of a collective that no longer accepts the folkloric role so often assigned to African or Arab selections: look pretty, run a lot, then go home with the gallery’s compliments. No. This Morocco wants to win, wants to last, wants to disturb. And it disturbs precisely because it is no longer there merely to make up the scenery. This victory therefore tastes like revenge, but above all like affirmation. A whole nation rejoices, carried by its players, its staff, and by a broader dynamic that goes beyond the simple realm of sport. Behind this epic lies a vision, an ambition, a recovered pride. Football does not explain everything, but it reveals much: a mindset, discipline, confidence. And what the Lions of the Atlas show today is a Morocco that has stopped asking permission to exist at the highest level. Now remains the next step: France. And with it another question, already almost a ritual before kick-off: who will referee? Because at that level, the naming of the man in black begins to resemble the announcement of the menu. We will soon know whether Morocco is invited to the banquet... or is itself on the menu. In any case, one thing is certain: this Morocco has already won something precious. It has won the respect of its own people, the admiration of millions of supporters, and the certainty that it can look any great nation straight in the eye. And if, in addition, it must defeat the opponent, doubt and the referee, then it might as well do so with panache. After all, the greatest epics were never written with an impartial whistle.

Morocco return to GMT: a belated decision on an all-too-perfectly timed calendar 2630

Aziz Daouda, 18 d.
- Politics - Society - Business -
3.2 min read.
Morocco is about to close a chapter that was opened eight years ago. As of 20 September 2026, the Kingdom will definitively — perhaps — abandon the permanent GMT+1 time regime and return to its so‑called legal time: GMT. For many Moroccans, this announcement is a relief. But behind that satisfaction lies a political question worth asking: why wait until the end of the government’s term and, above all, why schedule this return only a few days before a decisive election? GMT was first decreed in 1913, before switching to GMT+1 in 1918. There were a few periodic changes, particularly during World War II, but it was in 1967 that the choice of GMT was definitively settled. In the era of the Sharifian Empire, there was no official time: each city set its clocks by the sun. Choosing GMT was political, but also an obvious geographical and astronomical decision. Days were organized in harmony with sunrise and sunset, a rhythm that structured economic, social and religious life. In 2008 Morocco reintroduced daylight saving time, which had already been tried before. The stated aim was to save energy and align the country’s hours more closely with Europe for part of the year. Moroccans gradually got used to the seasonal changes, despite recurring criticism. The real break, however, came in October 2018. By decree of Prime Minister Saadeddine El Othmani, adopted a few days before the usual clock change, the government decided to permanently maintain GMT+1, reverting to GMT only during the month of Ramadan. This decision, taken without genuine public debate or thorough consultation, permanently disrupted citizens’ daily lives. The justifications offered were familiar: improve economic competitiveness, facilitate exchanges with European partners and optimize administrative organization. But the negative effects quickly appeared. The government had simply forgotten to readjust public administration hours and school schedules in particular. It did not bother to measure the social consequences of the decision, nor to adjust certain daily rhythms. Millions of pupils now leave their homes before sunrise for several months of the year. Biological rhythms are disrupted. Families report chronic fatigue, especially among young children. Teachers, employees and many professionals mention adaptation difficulties that became permanent. Gradually, maintaining GMT+1 stopped being a mere technical issue and became a symbol of a decision imposed without popular support. That opposition never disappeared. Every year, as Ramadan approached and the ensuing clock adjustments resurfaced the debate, social networks rekindled the discussion. Petitions circulated, associations challenged the authorities. Even experts were far from unanimous about the real economic benefits of the measure. In other words, the government cannot reasonably claim to be discovering the extent of the rejection today. That is precisely what makes the current decision politically interesting. The return to GMT is not the result of a sudden revelation. It represents the culmination of a long-standing demand that the authorities had until now chosen to ignore. So the real question is no longer whether returning to GMT is a good decision — many would answer yes — but rather why this moment was chosen and why there is no objective assessment of the economic and social gains or losses since 2018. Legally, nothing is disputable. The government fully has the power to set the country’s legal time. The decree adopted in the Council of Government falls within the executive’s competences. But politics is never reducible to law. When a measure directly affects the daily lives of nearly forty million citizens, its timing also becomes a political act. It also impacts many economic sectors connected to Europe. 20 September 2026 falls squarely within an electoral period, just days before a highly anticipated legislative vote. Can we seriously believe such timing is purely coincidental? It is hard to ignore the symbolic force of a decision that precisely erases one of the reforms whose unpopularity was revived every Ramadan, at the moment when voters will head to the polls. Suspicion becomes inevitable. Three explanations can be advanced. The first is that of a belated correction. The government would have finally recognized that permanently maintaining GMT+1 was a political and social mistake that needed fixing before leaving office. The second rests on electoral calculation. By removing a daily source of irritation, the executive could be seeking to restore part of its sympathy capital at a time when every vote matters. The third is political messaging. Every government prefers to end its term with a popular decision rather than with the memory of a widely contested reform. These hypotheses are not mutually exclusive. It is perfectly possible that a government sincerely corrects a mistake while also choosing the moment when that correction will have the greatest political effect. It is precisely this ambiguity that fuels the debate. At bottom, the affair goes far beyond the mere question of clock hands: it raises questions about how governments make decisions and, above all, how they accept — or refuse — to acknowledge their mistakes. Why allow such widespread discontent to persist for eight years before responding? Why wait until the last days of a mandate to return to a solution that geography, history and a large part of public opinion considered the most natural? In politics, decisions count, but their timing often speaks as loudly as their content. The return to GMT will likely ease the daily lives of millions of Moroccans. It is probably a sensible decision. Yet the choice of timing leaves a lingering impression: that of a government waiting until the polls approached to listen to what citizens had been repeating, rightly or wrongly, for eight years. Official time may finally be back in step with Morocco. The question remains whether political time has not arrived a little too late. In any case, we are about to change the clocks without a genuine, measurable scientific assessment of the beneficial or harmful effects of the 2018 change.

What is going on with British democracy? 2847

Aziz Daouda, 20 d.
- Politics - Society -
3 min read.
Long presented as the model par excellence of modern parliamentarism, the United Kingdom today looks like a political system losing stability and possibly running out of steam. The recent resignation of the Prime Minister — the eighth in just ten years — raises a fundamental question: can a great power be governed effectively when leadership changes hands almost every year? For nearly two centuries, the Westminster model was held up as a universal reference. From London to Ottawa, from Canberra to New Delhi, and across many former colonies, British institutions inspired constitutions, electoral systems and parliamentary practices. The idea was simple: a government accountable to Parliament, an organized opposition, peaceful alternation and a remarkable continuity of the state. This model long worked because it rested on solid pillars: two major parties capable of governing over the long term, a powerful civil service, a constitutional monarchy above partisan quarrels, and a political culture favoring compromise rather than confrontation. Today, that architecture shows worrying cracks. Its functioning is running out of breath. Since the Brexit referendum in 2016, British political life has entered an almost permanent period of turbulence. Prime ministers have succeeded one another at an unprecedented rate: David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer — not to mention all others — and now another head of government soon to follow. Eight leaders in ten years: a number one would usually associate with an unstable democracy or a regime in crisis, certainly not with the world’s oldest parliamentary democracy. This instability is not only the result of elections. Most of these leaders were not removed by voters but by their own parties. The British prime minister depends above all on the confidence of their parliamentary majority. As soon as that confidence erodes, MPs mount an internal rebellion, change leader and, consequently, change the head of government without consulting the electorate. Constitutionally, the mechanism is perfectly legal. Democratically, however, it raises a fundamental question: how far can top leaders be replaced without asking citizens again, when the Constitution defines citizens as the true decision-makers? The case of Liz Truss in 2022 remains emblematic. A near-unique political anecdote — except perhaps for some recent developments in France and in different systems — she was elected leader of the Conservative Party and lasted only forty-nine days, forced to resign after markets lost confidence. Her successor, Rishi Sunak, came to power without a general election. And now the scenario seems to be repeating. This volatility has concrete consequences. Every new prime minister arrives with a team, priorities, promises and sometimes a vision radically different from their predecessor. Reforms are launched then abandoned. Economic strategies shift. international partners struggle to identify a durable policy line. Investors hesitate in the face of such unpredictability. Can long-term public policies be pursued when governments live in a perpetual campaign? The energy transition, modernization of the health system, immigration reform and economic recovery require constancy and rock-solid stability. Yet that stability is increasingly hypothetical. The paradox is striking. Defenders of the British system see in this ability to replace a leader quickly proof of its vitality: an unpopular or ineffective prime minister can be removed without causing a major institutional crisis. The system would thus correct its own mistakes. One can also see it as a symptom of a democracy hijacked by party machines. Voters choose a program and a leader; months later they sometimes discover another prime minister, with another orientation, without having been consulted. The crisis goes beyond personalities. It reveals a deep transformation of British politics: party fragmentation, the rise of populisms, loss of confidence in elites, the growing influence of social networks, extreme personalization of power and difficulty building durable majorities. Cronyism and vested interests are never far away. Brexit did not create these fractures; it revealed and amplified them. This evolution also calls into question the international prestige of the British model. For a long time, London lectured the rest of the world on governance. Today, some countries that once looked to Westminster now watch its inventor’s troubles with surprise. British democracy is no longer the model of stability it once claimed to embody. Some of us once thought it the perfect template that could be transplanted to Morocco. Should we conclude it is in decline? That would be premature. British institutions retain considerable strengths: an independent judiciary, a free press, a competent civil service and a deeply rooted parliamentary tradition. Few countries would weather such a string of crises without questioning their constitutional order. But another truth is clear: the political stability that was the system’s main strength is no longer guaranteed. When a country changes its head of government eight times in a decade, it can no longer rely on tradition alone to reassure citizens or convince the world. Extremes are watching. The United Kingdom remains a resilient democracy. It is, however, no longer the uncontested example it was for two centuries. Its recent history reminds us of a often-forgotten truth: no democracy, however old, is immune to institutional wear and tear. The question is therefore no longer whether the British model is in crisis. The facts already answer affirmatively. The real question is different: is this a temporary crisis tied to the exceptional shocks of Brexit and economic upheavals, or the first signs of a deeper exhaustion of a political system that for nearly two centuries shaped many contemporary democracies without always delivering the promised stability? God save the King.

The International Olympic Committee Facing Its Contradictions... 2893

Aziz Daouda, 21 d.
- Sports -
2.8 min read.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) likes to present itself as the guardian of sport’s universal values, of excellence and self-transcendence. Yet behind this carefully maintained image lies a reality that is increasingly hard to justify: an organization that no one voted for, which generates billions of dollars from the Olympic Games while stubbornly refusing to redistribute that wealth fairly to those who actually produce it—the athletes. For several years now, the question of paying Olympic athletes has repeatedly resurfaced. It is neither new nor revolutionary. It simply concerns a basic principle of economic justice. Without athletes there would be no Olympic Games, no television audiences, no sponsors, no marketing rights, no commercial revenues. Sport is a collection of disciplines that are nothing more than bodily expressions demanding from their practitioners: sacrifice, physical effort, financial outlay and perseverance. Athletes are therefore the raw material of the Olympic spectacle. Yet they remain the only participants in this vast industry who do not directly benefit from the revenues they generate. Added to this injustice is the fundamental role of host states and cities, which mobilize considerable resources—drawn from taxes and public labor—to stage the Games. Infrastructure, security, transport, accommodation, organization: the costs are largely borne by taxpayers while the largest revenues flow back to the IOC. The Olympic economic model thus rests on a massive contribution from athletes, their clubs, their federations and their states—and, of course, from host countries—while profits remain largely concentrated at the top of the pyramid. Facing growing pressure from athletes’ commissions, federations and public opinion, the IOC has just announced the creation of a new aid program called the “Fit for the Future Olympian Grant.” For the first time in history, Olympic participants will be eligible for a $10,000 stipend intended to support their sporting careers or professional reintegration. A total envelope of $140 million per Olympiad was announced by Pau Gasol, chair of the IOC Athletes’ Commission, during the IOC’s 146th Session recently held in Lausanne. Presented as a historic advance, this initiative resembles more a political response than a genuine structural reform. First, because the amounts announced remain modest compared with Olympic revenues. Income generated by broadcast rights, global partnerships and marketing programs amounts to billions of dollars each Olympic cycle. Compared with that windfall, the $140 million pool appears more a symbolic gesture than a real redistribution of wealth. Second, because this aid does not address the athletes’ central demand: to be recognized as full economic actors of the Olympic movement. The IOC continues to regard athletes as recipients of assistance rather than as producers of value. That nuance is crucial. A grant remains a form of charity. Revenue-sharing, by contrast, constitutes recognition of a right—a compensation for the effort made. This distinction explains why the IOC’s announcement fools few informed observers. The organization clearly seeks to defuse criticism without calling its economic model into question. It is taking a small step to avoid taking a much larger one: the establishment of a transparent mechanism to redistribute Olympic revenues. That is what happened in athletics beginning in the 1980s, when, under pressure from athletes, the IAAF agreed to award bonuses to competitors and compensation for preparation to federations at the World Championships. The IOC’s traditional argument is that it already redistributes part of its resources through international federations, national Olympic committees and the Olympic Solidarity program. But that defense today shows its limits. Olympic Solidarity, in particular, has become an instrument whose effectiveness deserves serious questioning. Its administrative workings are costly, complex and highly bureaucratic. Despite decades of existence, its results remain difficult to measure in many countries. The sporting performances of the least developed nations have not seen the spectacular rise that might have justified the investments made. A significant portion of resources appears absorbed by the management mechanisms themselves rather than by the direct development of athletes. The paradox is striking: while the IOC has the financial means to transform permanently the training and career-transition conditions of thousands of athletes, it continues to favor indirect schemes whose impact remains limited. One can even argue that the aid and grants allocated through Olympic Solidarity never actually reach the athletes. The debate opening now goes far beyond the question of the announced $10,000. It concerns the governance of the Olympic movement itself. Can we still justify an organization accumulating considerable financial reserves while refusing a fairer sharing of revenues with the main actors of its success? Can we continue to invoke Olympic amateurism when the Games have become one of the world’s most profitable commercial events? Sooner or later, the IOC will have to answer these questions. The creation of the “Fit for the Future Olympian Grant” is an implicit admission: pressure from athletes is now producing effects. But it also reveals the institution’s persistent desire to retain absolute control over the redistribution of Olympic wealth. History shows, however, that no economic system can indefinitely ignore those who create its value. Olympic athletes are not asking for charity. They are simply demanding their fair share. And on that score, the IOC still has a long way to go.

Crisis of leadership: A nation will only have the leaders it deserves... 2899

Aziz Daouda, 21 d.
- Politics - Society -
3.1 min read.
Man is born first with a basic reflex: to defend himself. To protect his body, his immediate territory, his survival. This instinct is ancient, almost animal. With social and intellectual evolution, that horizon widens. Man becomes capable of defending his family, his clan, and sometimes a community. But few are able to conceive of and sustain the defense of an entire nation’s interest. Yet it is precisely this capacity that distinguishes a true statesman from a mere political actor or a follower citizen. This reality sheds light on a major difficulty modern systems face in producing real leaders, especially in developing regions where the standard of living often correlates with the level of consciousness and clarity of vision. Most individuals naturally reason from their immediate interests. Even in the most advanced democracies, many political leaders put their careers first, their electoral clientele, their regional, ethnic, economic or ideological group. Few manage to break free from that logic and adopt a long-term national vision. World political history is full of examples illustrating this fundamental difference between a manager and a leader. A manager administers what exists. A leader transforms a society by carrying a vision that transcends his own interest. When General Charles de Gaulle returned to power in 1958, France was deeply divided by the Algerian War. He could have chosen the easy political path by aligning with the most powerful groups of the moment. Instead he chose a painful course he considered consonant with France’s strategic interest. That ability to think of the nation before immediate passions precisely defines historic leadership. Similarly, Nelson Mandela could have governed South Africa in a spirit of revenge after twenty-seven years in prison. He chose national reconciliation. Again, he no longer defended a group, but a higher idea of the nation. His successors squandered the capital he had built. Many countries today suffer from permanent political fragmentation. Parties become electoral machines focused on internal balances, personal ambitions, or short-term calculations. Political debate is then reduced to a quantitative competition: how many seats, how many votes, which coalitions. This is precisely where the theoretical role of political parties comes in. In modern democracies, parties should not be mere instruments for electoral conquest. Their fundamental mission is much nobler and more difficult: to identify, train, and promote personalities capable of rising above particular interests to embody the general interest. Yet this mission has become extremely complex. Mass media, the dominance of social networks and the politics of buzz often favor the most visible profiles rather than the most visionary. The ability to produce a viral line is rewarded more than the ability to build a national strategy for twenty years. Media time has become faster than political time. This drift explains why so many societies now experience a leadership crisis. Leaders are sometimes elected by statistical mechanism more than by genuine adherence to a vision. Universal suffrage remains essential, but it does not automatically guarantee the emergence of the best. It mainly makes it possible to designate those most capable of winning a majority. Between being elected and being a historic leader, however, there is a vast difference. A true leader possesses several rare characteristics: the capacity for personal sacrifice, long-term vision, the courage to accept temporary unpopularity, and above all the aptitude to reconcile conflicting interests around a national project. That is why great nations invest heavily in training their political, administrative and intellectual elites. Universities, grandes écoles, military or diplomatic institutions often play a major role in shaping leaders. The United States has Harvard University, Yale University or Stanford; France has Sciences Po or the former ENA; the United Kingdom has relied for centuries on the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge. These institutions do not automatically produce political geniuses. But they create spaces where a culture of the State and the nation is built. In developing countries, the difficulty is even greater. The weight of local, tribal, economic or clientelist affiliations can sometimes prevent the emergence of a genuine national consciousness. The political leader then becomes the defender of a segment of society or an interest group rather than the servant of the whole nation. Yet no nation can sustainably progress without leaders able to elevate collective debate above immediate interests. The great political challenge of the 21st century is therefore not only economic or technological. It is human. How do we train men and women capable of thinking beyond themselves? How do we produce leaders who sometimes accept political loss in order to make their country win historically? In this respect, the situation unfolding in Morocco starkly illustrates this leadership crisis, with exhausted parties unable to renew their elites and discourses, while the political field oscillates between the noisy populism of some, the silence or assumed incompetence of others, and the proliferation of specialists in lies and hollow promises, with less than three months to go before crucial legislative elections for the country's future. Where do we stand with personalities such as Allal El Fassi, Abderrahim Bouabid, Abdelkhalek Torres, Mohamed Hassan El Ouazani and others? They were all products of a consciousness and a historical context. What then of the real challenges, of conscience and responsibility? What of the context that leaves us no choice? Where to move forward: consolidate the country's upward trajectory or, conversely, miss the technological turn as we missed the mechanization turn. The consequences are known to all: the Sherifian Empire eventually ended up placed under a protectorate and dismembered. Many citizens today are convinced that the answer cannot come solely from the ballot box. It also depends on education, political culture, the quality of institutions, citizens' honesty and the maturity of society. For at bottom, a nation often gets the leaders it prepares, values... and deserves.

When football studios become platforms for ill‑informed geopolitics... 2934

Aziz Daouda, 21 d.
- Politics - Society - Sports -
2.5 min read.
The World Cup is first and foremost a celebration of sport, a moment when tactics, technique, predictions and collective narrative take center stage. Yet at every major tournament lately, some studio panels turn into makeshift political arenas. Discussions meant to be about the game too often slide into poorly handled geopolitical sparring, to the detriment of sporting analysis and mutual respect among peoples. Television offers valuable visibility. For a pundit, columnist or host, being invited on a panel is an opportunity to clarify, inform and share expertise. But fame does not equal competence. Recently we’ve seen a worrying trend: contributors whose legitimacy rests on football morph into occasional political scientists when the topic is North African national teams. Instead of explaining a tactical choice, a technical performance or analyzing physical preparation, some use the microphone to denounce or instrumentalize historical and diplomatic tensions. The tone becomes aggressive and remarks turn ridiculous, veering into antisemitism, gutter invective and obsessive denigration. This drift is not harmless. It rests on a category error: talking about football requires sporting expertise; discussing international relations demands mastery of facts, historical perspective and rhetorical caution. The two fields rely on different methodologies. Reducing one to the other endangers the quality of public debate. The media magnifying effect means visibility should be paired with responsibility. The second problem is impact. A TV panel is watched by thousands, even millions. Statements made live are picked up and amplified on social media, sometimes stripped of context. When a pundit issues a sweeping opinion about history or diplomacy, the audience can take it as an authoritative verdict. This is particularly dangerous because it can present a partisan vision, deliberately shaped into a media “truth,” feeding resentments and stereotypes among closely connected peoples. One obvious reminder is needed: no commentator speaks for a people. Delegated speech in a media democracy is not a mandate. Confusing a pundit’s voice with that of a nation is an error as common as it is harmful. Sporting passions should not trample centuries‑old ties. While verbal fireworks make talk shows thrive, they must not obscure a firmer reality: ties between the peoples of the Maghreb rest on centuries of shared history, economic and cultural exchanges and family solidarities. These bonds usually withstand the excesses of studio debates and the lapses of some “politicians.” Sporting rivalries often exist within a framework of healthy competitiveness; they should not be turned into political conflict whose only aim is to mask one weakness or another. Distinguishing the rule from the exception is therefore essential. Outbursts happen, but they do not represent the totality of human and cultural relations in the region or the real situation of any given country. By contrast, the majority of supporters, sports journalists and analysts work to make sport a vector of exchange, not a pretext for polarizing societies. The shows that allowed these excesses would do well to return to best practices if they want to reclaim constructive debate. It is possible to restore program quality; media leaders and those in government have a duty to ensure this—unless it suits them otherwise. Unless they are complicit, some practical recommendations apply: - Clarify the formats: clearly separate sports segments from socio‑political debates, with hosts who steer discussions back on track when they degenerate. - Encourage nuance: promote well‑documented, sourced and balanced interventions rather than gratuitous theatrics and provocation. - Hold media accountable: establish editorial charters that set consultants’ scope and sanction factual departures. - Train contributors: offer sports pundits briefings on historical and diplomatic issues, and vice versa. - Respect expertise: invite qualified specialists (academics, historians, diplomats) for geopolitical topics and distinguish them from sports debates. These measures are not meant to muzzle speech but to make it more legitimate and useful. They will not necessarily deter troublemakers. Beyond ethical comfort, the stake is concrete: the credibility of public debate. When ignorance masquerades as expertise, the whole audience loses. Viewers tune in for explanations about a team’s performance, not a truncated history lesson serving hatred and discrimination. The risk is to normalize intellectual sloppiness and to instrumentalize television as an echo chamber for poorly informed grudges and cheap propaganda. Football deserves better than being hijacked for premature, ill‑founded polemics. Sports studios should remain spaces for game analysis, celebration of performance and respectful exchange. When politics must be discussed, call qualified voices and give them time to analyze. Ending makeshift geopolitics is a way to restore sport’s primary function: bringing peoples closer, not driving them apart. Polemic and insults do not diminish a country’s achievements, nor do they ennoble those who spread them.

Demography: Morocco’s existential challenge in the 21st century... 2926

Aziz Daouda, 21 d.
- Politics - Society - Business -
2.9 min read.
Dealing with demography is often seen as a statistical exercise reserved for demographers, economists or specialized institutions. History, however, shows that no single factor shapes a nation’s destiny more than changes in its population. Economic power, social cohesion, military capacity, innovation, pensions, public health and territorial balances all depend on demographic dynamics. Publications by the High Commission for Planning and reports from the Economic, Social and Environmental Council regularly describe ongoing transformations. But the strategic significance of these changes is rarely addressed, as if population ageing were merely one natural phenomenon among many rather than one of Morocco’s main challenges for the coming decades. The country counts nearly 37 million inhabitants. That number is significant regionally, but modest compared with many emerging powers. Morocco is undergoing an accelerated demographic transition. Fertility, which was 5.78 children per woman in the 1980s, has fallen to levels that threaten generational replacement. This trend reflects advances in education, the improvement of women’s status, rising urbanisation and better access to healthcare. It also carries its own set of challenges. When generations become smaller, the age pyramid gradually changes: the base narrows while the top widens, and society ages. Morocco therefore risks ageing before it has become fully wealthy. Unlike European countries, which benefited from a century of prosperity before confronting ageing, the Kingdom will have to manage development demands and the needs of an increasingly older population at the same time. A true trap. Japan, often cited as the global reference for ageing, became an economic power before it aged. Morocco, by contrast, could experience a rapid demographic transition without having sufficient wealth to absorb the consequences: social and health expenditures and the cost of caring for the elderly will soar. The number of contributors supporting pension systems will fall, with fewer active workers supporting more dependents. No pension system can sustainably resist that mathematical reality. The issue becomes more strategic in light of the Kingdom’s economic ambitions. Under the leadership of His Majesty King Mohammed VI, the country has embarked on a deep transformation of its economic model. Modern infrastructure, renewable energy, the automotive and aeronautics sectors, emerging defence industries, digital technologies, major logistics projects and the Football World Cup are pillars of this new economy. But behind the investments and infrastructure remains the same decisive factor: human capital. Who will work in tomorrow’s factories and build future infrastructure? Who will ensure agricultural production as rural areas empty? Who will fund national solidarity mechanisms? The Moroccan paradox is already clear. The country simultaneously suffers from high unemployment and labour shortages in many sectors. Construction, agriculture, crafts, certain manufacturing industries and several technical trades struggle to recruit. This contradiction reflects a growing mismatch between the economy’s needs and the aspirations of part of the youth, who legitimately or not seek specific conditions and better-paid jobs. At the same time, interest is waning in some occupations that are nonetheless essential to the economy. The phenomenon is not exclusive to Morocco: it also affects Europe and North America. Here it is aggravated by other factors, including the low social status of certain trades, the size of the informal sector and shortcomings in vocational training after the abandonment of traditional apprenticeship, wrongly stigmatized as child labour. Manual and technical work is insufficiently valued even though it is the backbone of many high-performing economies. Another question is quietly emerging: what if Morocco became a country of structural immigration? This hypothesis may surprise in a country historically marked by emigration. Morocco already hosts thousands of workers and students mainly from sub-Saharan Africa. Tomorrow, these flows could become indispensable to certain economic sectors. The real question is not whether immigration will exist, but what kind of immigration Morocco wants to organise. Skilled immigration or temporary labour migration? Regional African immigration integrated into the Kingdom’s continental strategy? This reflection must start today to avoid future improvisation. Demography is also a matter of sovereignty. The great powers of the 21st century possess a balance of territory, population, economy and innovation. China, India, the United States and other regional powers base their influence on that combination. For Morocco, demography has a particular dimension. The Kingdom harbours continental economic ambitions, plays an increasing diplomatic role, develops its maritime fronts and strengthens its presence in global value chains. All these ambitions require an engaged, motivated, active, dynamic, qualified and sufficiently numerous population. The challenge is strategic: Morocco needs a demographic pact to face these challenges. A national debate is necessary. The reflection should go beyond the sole question of birth rates. It must encompass family policies, housing, youth employment, education, vocational training, pensions, immigration, health, territorial planning and investment. In other words, a cross-cutting policy involving all public stakeholders. Morocco has always shown its capacity to anticipate major strategic challenges: energy policy, port infrastructure and water resource management are examples. Demography deserves the same level of attention today. A country is not reduced to its roads, its factories or its macroeconomic indicators; it rests first and foremost on men and women able to produce, innovate, pass on knowledge, defend and build the future. The real challenge is therefore not only economic or social: it is demographic. And it is precisely because it is silent that it may be the most important of all.

The Columbus Unicorn Analogy: What 16th-Century Venture Capital May Reveal About Today’s Confusing AI-Disrupted Global VC Landscape 3787

Satta Abraham, 28 d.
- History - Technology - Finance -
3.2 min read.
Half a millennium ago, a Genoese sailor named Christopher Columbus faced repeated rejections from several European courts. Eventually he persuaded the Spanish Crown to fund his daring plan to sail westward toward Asia. Spain in essence became a Renaissance venture capitalist. It supplied capital for a high-risk voyage that offered asymmetric upside and only modest immediate risk to the Crown. Columbus reached the New World in 1492. The expedition exceeded every reasonable expectation and opened vast new territories and resources. After this 'breakthrough', European powers diverged sharply in their responses to this discovery. Their long-term outcomes depended far less on the initial breakthrough and far more on the institutions and systems each built around it. Some extracted quick wealth and later declined, others constructed frameworks that allowed gains to compound across generations. This historical pattern may offer a thoughtful perspective on the current venture capital environment. AI is a disruptive force that continues to challenge established assumptions about moats, scale, defensibility, unit economics, capital efficiency, and sustainable competitive advantage. The present moment feels especially ambiguous. We witnessed the so-called SaaS apocalypse, followed by intense enthusiasm for agents, then, AI-native companies, then deeper questions about whether enduring value will come from ambitious system-level platforms resembling advanced versions of ServiceNow, Palantir. At the same time, enormous sums of capital flow into current datacenters, chip fabrication plants, and energy infrastructure. Yet possible advances in the physics of computation, including photonics and light-based systems, quantum approaches, neuromorphic designs, or entirely new paradigm may mean terminal value is fragile if depreciation cycles are longer than efficiency cycles. In this environment where uncertainty and possibility coexist, the lessons from the Age of Discovery may provide useful reflection. After the Ottoman Empire captured Constantinople in 1453, it imposed heavy restrictions on traditional Silk Road routes. European merchants encountered rising costs and blocked access to Asian goods. This structural bottleneck created widespread pressure for innovation. Columbus presented Spain with a classic power-law opportunity. He proposed a western route that could deliver massive rewards in trade, territory, and resources. Spain accepted the wager that other courts had passed on. The voyage produced consequences that transformed global affairs. Enormous flows of silver from mines such as Potosí and gold from additional sources reached Spain. This single outlier generated wealth on a scale that financed major wars and secured temporary supremacy in the 16th century. It exemplified the ultimate venture capital success. However, it was short-lived, Spain soon faced what later became known as the resource curse. The surge of bullion triggered severe inflation during the Price Revolution. It weakened domestic manufacturing and prompted the Crown to favor military spending over productive investment. Spain declared bankruptcy four times between 1557 and 1596. Extractive wealth without strong compounding institutions showed its limits. Portugal followed a distinct path. It developed a widespread network of fortified trading posts known as "feitorias" across Americas, Africa, India, and Asia. These outposts emphasized control of key maritime chokepoints and logistics routes rather than large inland territories. The strategy produced meaningful early monopoly rents through trade dominance. However, the model relied heavily on physical assets. It offered limited capacity for continuous innovation or capital reinvestment. More adaptable rivals eventually eroded its position. In 1602 the Dutch Republic launched the VOC, widely considered the first publicly traded joint-stock company. Through the Amsterdam Bourse, risk spread across thousands of investors instead of remaining concentrated with one sovereign. This approach turned individual voyages into portfolio components. Capital gained the ability to compound over extended periods rather than depending on isolated expeditions. The Dutch model brought new resilience and scalability to maritime enterprise. England attained the most lasting advantage but through the careful construction of interconnected institutions. Chartered companies distributed risk. The Bank of England, established in 1694, supported sovereign credit and capital recycling. A capable navy, sustained by trade revenues, protected expanding routes and enabled continued growth. These components formed a self-reinforcing cycle that drove industrial expansion and long-term leadership. France achieved notable results in luxury manufacturing and colonial trade. Its financial systems, however, frequently encountered serious problems. The Mississippi Company project led by John Law between 1716 and 1720 illustrated the dangers of centralized capital allocation. It merged state debt, monopoly rights, and speculative currency in ways that produced an initial boom followed by collapse, hyperinflation, and extended stagnation. Over-centralization often reduced essential market feedback. In the 16th century Antwerp served as a dynamic center of commerce, finance, and skilled talent. Its prominence rested on relatively fragile foundations. The violent events of 1576 led to a substantial exodus of merchants, financiers, and craftsmen toward Amsterdam. Concentrations of talent without supporting institutional depth often struggled to maintain advantage. The Age of Discovery consistently demonstrates one core principle. Discovery identifies value, systems compound it to sustain. The contemporary venture capital landscape exists in a state of fertile uncertainty. Significant resources continue to enter into frontier models, AI companies, datacenters and fabrication facilities, etc. based on prevailing assumptions. Yet advances in the science and economic utility of the present tech may shift in any direction. Who is making true power-law bets today, much like Spain backing Columbus after others refused? Who is building durable compounding systems like England’s institutional flywheel or the Dutch capital pooling model, rather than simply controlling temporary chokepoints like Portugal’s trading posts? Who has the discipline to avoid a modern resource curse like Spain, or the centralized failures like France, and the fragile hub risks like Antwerp, by creating resilient market systems wave while assumptions about moats and scale keep shifting? The long-term alpha may lie in anti-fragile, evolving systems that secure lasting advantage, regardless of whether future models or computation proceeds through LQMs, embodied AI, LLNs, light rays, quantum methods, or approaches still beyond our imagination.

Consume Moroccan: what if the State finally made national preference a massive employment lever? 3835

Aziz Daouda, 28 d.
- Politics - Business -
3 min read.
For decades Morocco has searched for the formula that would sustainably reduce unemployment, ease inequalities, and strengthen its economic sovereignty. Plans and strategies follow one another; yet one economic truth remains: employment is not decreed, it is created by demand. No factory hires if no one buys its products. No artisan survives without customers. No industrial sector grows without a solid market. Industrial powers understood this long ago: to create jobs, you must first steer national consumption toward national production. Morocco already knows this mechanism. The social housing sector is a telling example: tax exemptions and support mechanisms enabled the emergence of a complete ecosystem. The result: hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs in construction, carpentry, materials, transport and other finishing trades. Why not apply this logic to Morocco’s automotive industry, for example? Here the paradox is striking. The kingdom is the largest car manufacturer in Africa. Renault and Stellantis export hundreds of thousands of vehicles per year; popular models are assembled locally and Neo Motors embodies the ambition of a national brand. And yet, in the public sphere as well as among many private citizens, purchases of imported vehicles remain predominant. What message are we sending our industrialists if the State itself favors foreign products? Is it acceptable that administrations, which are heavy vehicle consumers, procure imported vehicles en masse? That should simply be avoided. An individual choosing to buy a vehicle not made in Morocco to commute or carry their family is their choice; it is another matter when the State does it. That is why a policy encouraging national purchases seems economically logical and easy to imagine: bonuses for buying vehicles produced in Morocco (for example a rebate of 30,000 dirhams for some national electric vehicles, 20,000 for popular locally-made models), targeted tax exemptions and access to preferential loans for cars with a high national industrial content. These measures may seem costly at first glance. But one must measure the chain effect: when a vehicle made in Morocco is purchased, the factory raises production, subcontractors hire, carriers create value, the State collects more tax revenue and social contributions, and wages injected into the economy revive other sectors. A national car is not just a purchase; it activates an entire economic sector. Precedents elsewhere support this approach. The Buy American Act in the United States, China’s strategic protection of key industries, European green bonuses favouring local production, and Germany’s industrial policies show that privileging domestic production is not an isolationist reflex but a common instrument of industrial policy. Why would what is considered smart elsewhere be labeled “excessive protectionism” when applied in Morocco? How to explain that offices are fitted with imported furniture while many carpenters complain of a lack of demand? How is it that the rugs used in some public spaces and offices do not come from Rabat, Taznakht, or the Atlas? Thousands of jobs could be created in this way. The Moroccan State has a major lever: its public procurement. Ministries, local authorities and public institutions spend billions every year. If every public dirham spent abroad is potentially a lost job, imagine a simple rule: mandatory priority to Moroccan products when a local alternative exists. That would change everything. Administrative furniture made in Morocco, public vehicles manufactured locally, handicrafts integrated into public buildings, local materials for public works: these decisions would introduce structural and lasting demand for thousands of Moroccan companies. Public buildings could become showcases of national know‑how because the issue goes beyond industry: it touches culture and heritage. Morocco has one of the richest artisan traditions in the world: zellige, tadelakt, carved wood, ironwork, carpets, leather, traditional ceilings—yet many public spaces display a standard without identity. Requiring a significant share of Moroccan craftsmanship in new public constructions would not only be symbolic: it would be massive support for artisans, SMEs, skills transmission, and cultural tourism. What impact on employment? One direct job in industry often generates 3 to 5 indirect jobs (subcontracting, logistics, maintenance, trade, financial services). If public procurement shifted toward “Made in Morocco,” tens of thousands of jobs could be created or consolidated over several years. In crafts and local materials, the social effect would be even stronger, since these sectors are very labor-intensive. Advocating “consume Moroccan” is not closed nationalism. The country must obviously remain open to trade and foreign investment; that openness has been a success factor. But smart openness also requires consolidating a domestic productive base. Producing without consuming your own goods means remaining dependent on volatile external demand and exposing yourself to international shocks. Economic sovereignty begins with confidence in our productive capacities. The real obstacle may be cultural: for a long time imported goods were considered superior in many post‑colonial societies. Yet the facts speak: cars made in Morocco run in Europe; Moroccan wiring and parts equip global brands; the national aeronautics and textile sectors work for multinationals. The challenge is often how we view ourselves. In reality, unemployment will fall when local production finds strong and lasting national demand. Every time a Moroccan chooses a product made in Morocco, they support a wage, a family, a workshop, a factory, a craft and contribute to greater social stability. Economic patriotism is not a slogan: it is a development strategy. If the country combines industrial determination, targeted support and cultural transformation, Morocco’s greatest wealth could become not only what it exports, but also what its citizens choose proudly to produce and consume.

South Africa: twilight of a model and recomposition of African leadership? 4292

Aziz Daouda, 1 mon.
- World Politics - Business -
2.9 min read.
For three decades, South Africa embodied the image of a modern, industrialized Africa reconciled with its history. The end of apartheid in 1994 raised immense hope. With Nelson Mandela, the country seemed to demonstrate that a peaceful transition between communities long opposed was possible. The assessment is now more nuanced. The country is going through a period of deep economic, social and institutional turbulence that calls into question its ability to retain its status as the continent’s leading power. The difficulties are not due simply to an unfavorable economic conjuncture, but reflect structural weaknesses that have gradually accumulated over the years. The economy, long considered the most developed in Africa, is struggling to regain its dynamism. Growth remains weak while unemployment reaches alarming levels. Statistics South Africa reports 32% for the overall rate and 45% among youth in 2025, fueling social frustrations and a sense of downward mobility. Added to this are persistent failures of infrastructure. Power cuts, difficulties in the rail network, deterioration of public services as well as governance problems in state-owned companies weigh heavily on the competitiveness of the economy. The country’s attractiveness to investors, who for a long time considered South Africa the natural gateway to the continent, is strongly affected. Economic indicators are not, however, sufficient to measure the scale of the current challenges. The security question constitutes one of the main concerns. With more than 27,000 homicides each year, or nearly 76 murders per day, it is one of the most violent countries. In Johannesburg, Pretoria or Durban, security is a real concern. Neighborhoods protected by sophisticated security systems are multiplying; Orania is the archetype. Companies devote large budgets to private security, hence a general climate of distrust further weakening national cohesion. Tensions also manifest themselves in recurring xenophobic violence. Migrants are accused of being the actors of insecurity and become the scapegoats of a social frustration fueled by economic difficulties. At the same time, a part of the white population expresses a growing feeling of marginalization. Debates around affirmative action policies, land reform and economic redistribution feed perceptions of injustice and exclusion. The country struggles to build a durable balance between historical redress, social justice and national cohesion. For many years, the African National Congress (ANC) benefited from immense political capital inherited from the struggle against apartheid. This historical credit has eroded. Corruption scandals have deeply marked public opinion. The work of the Zondo commission on "state capture" highlighted the extent of networks of influence that affected the functioning of the state and several strategic public companies. More and more South Africans now consider that the country’s current difficulties can no longer be explained solely by the legacy of the past. Questions of governance, administrative efficiency and public management now occupy a central place in the national debate. Recent electoral results, which forced the ANC to govern within a coalition, illustrate this progressive loss of political hegemony. For several decades, South Africa largely dominated the continent on industrial, financial and technological levels. Today, new growth poles are emerging. Morocco is the most significant example of this evolution. Thanks to a coherent industrial strategy, the Kingdom has established itself as a major player in the automotive, aeronautics, renewable energies and logistics sectors. The Tanger Med port is the leading port platform in Africa and the Mediterranean, linking the Kingdom to more than 180 international ports. Moroccan automobile exports have reached record levels. The country is now the most industrialized on the continent. This hurts Pretoria. This progress does not mean the replacement of South Africa. The two economies have different structures and many complementary strengths. It nevertheless illustrates a gradual rebalancing of the continent’s economic centers of gravity. South Africa’s difficulties raise a strategic question rarely addressed: where will capital, skills and talent seeking more stable environments go? Economic history shows that transition periods are often accompanied by movements of capital, know-how and investments toward economies offering the best prospects. In this context, Morocco has considerable assets: institutional stability, modern infrastructure, proximity to European markets, free trade agreements, an attractive regulatory framework and a long-term economic vision. The challenge for Rabat is not to take advantage of Pretoria’s difficulties but to position itself as the major platform of African growth in the twenty-first century. It would be premature to announce the irreversible decline of South Africa. The country retains considerable assets: a diversified economy, leading universities, a sophisticated financial sector, significant industrial infrastructure and remarkable human capital. However, the experience recalls a fundamental reality: no leadership is permanently acquired. Economic power does not rely only on past achievements; it depends on the quality of governance, security, innovation capacity and the confidence a country inspires in its own citizens as well as foreign investors. South Africa remains an essential actor on the continent, but the rise of Morocco and other emerging poles in West Africa shows that African leadership is entering a new phase. The question is not who will dominate the continent, but which countries will best meet the demands of competitiveness, stability and innovation to be the leaders of tomorrow. In this regard, Morocco appears as one of the main beneficiaries of the ongoing geoeconomic recompositions, progressively confirming its ambition to become the strategic center of African development in the twenty-first century. Better informed about the Kingdom, many South Africans would be tempted to undertake and, why not, settle there. Large companies are already present.

AI Fatigue is Real 4653

Tariq Daouda, 1 mon.
- Technology - Science - Realist -
1.1 min read.
The messages of fear are backfiring. The name itself is unbelievably fear inducing: Artificial Intelligence. For a society that idolizes science as thruth and therefore intelligence as power, this hits hard. It hits at the very ontological depth of most people's psyche. It announces the upcoming of a better intelligence, a more powerful intelligence, one that's clean, decisive: Perfect. Behold, for the new gods have announced themselves. And theses gods are not only more powerful than us, they are also selfish, and if they ever gain consciousness, they will certainly enslave us. Therefore we need to regulations to keep them in this embryo state of unconscious usefulness so we can use them before they can use us. It doesn't stop there. Even if we manage to keep AI unconscious, it is still so good that it will take your job. Here is the truth: AI is Sloppy and expensive. AI is not intelligent, unless you define intelligence in such an abstract way that only philosophers would recognize the definition. AI generated code caused massive outages to Amazon, Clouflare, Meta and countless other platforms that were previously pillars of the internet. The same company that tries so hard to convince us that they have built the perfect AI hacking system has leaked it's AI source code. Enough of AI fear mongering. The AI fatigue is starting to hit. People are tired of being scared into using AI, and forced to accept AI into everything and anything they own. A backlash against AI is brewing, and it's all due to a string of misrepresentation driven by a shortsighted communications campaign. If you are junior become better at your job and apply yourself. If you are good at your job you are better than any AI, and AI is likely to be the best tool at your disposal. The only threat to your livelihood is a manager that believes too much in the PR of AI firms.

The Silos That Sustain Problems: Academia Vs Practice; worsened by narrow specialization 4847

Satta Abraham, 1 mon.
- History - Science - Philosophy -
2.9 min read.
Human knowledge moves through distinct systems that produce findings, stabilize them into standards, and apply those standards under operational pressure. Each system serves a different function and develops its own vocabulary, incentive structure, and threshold of tolerance for error. The trouble begins when knowledge has to cross from one system to another and loses precision, timing, or practical force along the way. Academic systems prize controlled inference and internal validity. They reward claims that survive scrutiny under specified conditions and within carefully bounded methods. Professional systems absorb those claims and turn them into protocols, norms, standards, and training conventions. Operational environments then turn those standards into decisions made under time pressure, incomplete information, and competing demands. Ortega described the modern specialist as someone who develops deep competence inside a narrow domain while losing clarity at the boundaries where domains must meet. Specialization sharpens one lens and narrows the field of view. And each system rewards what it is built to reward. Academics advance by producing novel and rigorous findings. Professionals advance by adopting established standards. Operators advance by maintaining stability and speed. These incentive structures pull in different directions, and no single actor within any system is behaving irrationally. Each is responding correctly to the pressures of their own environment. The misalignment lives in how the systems are arranged, not in the people inside them. Specialization emerged because scale kept increasing. The Enlightenment expanded the volume and precision of knowledge. The Industrial Revolution embedded that knowledge inside large machine systems and production chains. The modern information era connected those systems globally and multiplied what any single institution had to process. Division of labor answered that pressure. It let institutions hold more complexity than any one mind could manage and distribute cognitive load across roles. But as fields expanded, their interfaces thickened. Crossing from one field to another required new vocabulary, new training, and new habits of interpretation. The crossing itself became work. The hardest problems gather exactly at those crossings, where several systems interact under different rules and timescales. Urban congestion depends on road design, commuter behavior, transit reliability, zoning, pricing, and logistics. Food system instability follows from agricultural policy, soil science, market systems, climate, and consumption patterns. Hospital overload reflects insurance design, staffing models, triage rules, discharge incentives, and primary care access. Each domain contributes partial control. The system only reveals itself when those partial controls collide. Academic systems produce validated relationships under controlled conditions. Problems appear when the result has to travel beyond the conditions that produced it. Context thins out, implementation detail falls away, time passes, relevance shrinks. As Simon observed, a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention. Institutions rarely lack information. They lack the capacity to sort it, rank it, and route it into action. Practice systems face a different failure. They build routines through repetition under stable conditions, and when conditions change, those routines often survive anyway. Updating them requires retraining, coordination across roles, and a temporary loss of efficiency that organizations typically resist even when better evidence exists. Over time, people remain highly competent at execution while the method they execute quietly loses fit with reality. When someone asks why a process works a certain way and the answer is that it has always been done that way, the process has usually outlived its reason. The rule remains; the rationale has gone. Between knowledge generation and execution sits a conversion layer. It includes guideline panels that turn research into protocols, standards bodies that define safety constraints, regulatory agencies that convert evidence into enforceable requirements, and systematic review organizations that compress dispersed studies into usable evidence. These institutions, when functioning well, reshape knowledge so it can survive action under constraint. They preserve validity while changing format, reduce complexity without deleting essential conditions, and turn scattered findings into forms that people can actually use. Where this layer is weak, knowledge stays local or arrives stripped of critical context. Where it is strong, knowledge travels farther without breaking. Familiar failures keep recurring in poverty, healthcare delivery, infrastructure planning, cybersecurity, and education because the conversion layer between evidence and action keeps failing, not because the underlying research is absent. Systems improve when they compare observed results against expected standards and feed those results back into revised practice. This reinforcement loop matters more than any raw finding standing alone. It requires that operational experience return upstream, that practitioners report what works and what does not, and that academic and professional systems treat that feedback as legitimate evidence. Standardization supports this by reducing ambiguity at the point of action, compressing complexity into forms that preserve enough structure for reliable use, provided those forms stay dynamic rather than calcifying into legacy. Structured coordination through shared artifacts, versioned documents, and enforced interfaces gives different roles a common reference point. Deliberate exchange across domain boundaries, actively seeking the nodes of adjacent expertise, creates more cohesion than friction and makes translation more reliable over time. System performance depends on how well knowledge moves across the stages that produce it, stabilize it, and apply it. Each stage works within its own limits and according to its own rewards. The larger arrangement succeeds only when knowledge crosses those stages without losing meaning, timing, or operational force. The most complex problems are not confined to any one domain, they transcend across and beyond.
bluwr.com/The-Silos-Tha- Sustain...

U.S.–Iran Agreement: A Ray of Hope in a Middle East Worn Out by War... 4880

Aziz Daouda, 1 mon.
- World Politics -
2.5 min read.
The announcement of an agreement between Washington and Tehran is undoubtedly one of the most significant diplomatic developments in the Middle East in recent years. It is not, to be sure, a final settlement. The most sensitive questions remain unresolved, and the coming weeks will be decisive in turning this step into the durable framework of stability so widely hoped for. Nevertheless, the mere fact that both parties chose negotiation over escalation already constitutes a victory for reason. Reason is badly needed these days. In a region where crises seem to follow one another without pause, this development brings a breath of hope to populations exhausted by decades of tension, conflict, and uncertainty. Beyond strategic considerations, ordinary citizens always pay the heaviest price of geopolitical confrontations: inflation, economic slowdown, generalized insecurity and a loss of confidence in the future. Donald Trump, who made the denunciation of the 2015 nuclear deal a hallmark of his foreign policy, can now claim a significant diplomatic advance. Both his critics and his supporters acknowledge that opening a channel of dialogue with Iran had become necessary to avert the risk of regional conflagration. If this preliminary agreement leads to a broader settlement, it will be one of the major achievements of his return to the White House. But every diplomatic progress also creates winners and losers. Among the latter is undoubtedly Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. For several years his singular political strategy has relied heavily on the perception of a permanent existential threat that justifies ever‑harsher security policies. A détente between Washington and Tehran would substantially weaken that narrative. After the tragedies experienced in Gaza, the regional tensions and the growing fractures within Israeli society itself, Netanyahu’s political record may be judged harshly by his fellow citizens. Tens of thousands of victims, massive destruction and collective trauma will leave deep scars for generations. The fundamental question remains: what will be left of these wars once the ideological narratives that fueled them have faded? Another question is whether Israel is actually more secure after so much death and destruction in the region. Recent Middle Eastern history shows that military victories are often short‑lived while the human consequences endure. Hatred begets hatred. Attacks lead to reprisals. Bombings provoke counter‑bombings. Today’s humiliations become tomorrow’s conflicts. As long as extremists on all sides continue to impose their logic of confrontation, peace will remain fragile. Faced with this reality, Morocco has for decades offered a particularly relevant counter‑model. Under the leadership of His Majesty King Mohammed VI, the Kingdom has consistently preferred diplomacy, interfaith dialogue and negotiated solutions to regional crises. Whether through support for the Middle East peace process, chairing the Al‑Quds Committee, or the numerous initiatives that foster rapprochement between peoples, Morocco has persistently promoted moderation and coexistence. This Moroccan vision rests on a simple conviction: no lasting peace can be imposed by force alone. True security arises from dialogue, economic development, mutual respect and recognition of the dignity of all peoples. In an increasingly polarized international environment, this approach seems more relevant than ever. For more than fifty years Morocco has endured a permanently belligerent climate at its borders, yet it has not lost its composure nor ceased to call for dialogue. This is not a sign of weakness but rather an expression of steady and enduring strength. The U.S.–Iran agreement, imperfect as it may be, recalls a fundamental truth: when weapons fall silent, even temporarily, hope is reborn. Young generations across the Middle East — Iranian, Israeli, Palestinian, Lebanese and others — primarily aspire to live, study, work and build a better future. They cannot remain forever hostage to the political calculations of leaders who profit from division. For the moment, the world can breathe. Perhaps sleep a little easier. But the real question remains: for how long? The future will depend on the ability of the region’s peoples to favor builders of peace over merchants of war. Beyond national interests and strategic rivalries, one truth stands out: the Middle East finally deserves to turn the page on endless conflict. Faithful to its diplomatic tradition and its commitment to peace, Morocco will doubtless continue to remind the world of a truth some sometimes forget: no victory is greater than the one that allows peoples to live together in stability, security and dignity. For now, let us all take a breath and pray. Today everyone asks why these wars happen and what they truly change on the ground or in history… Past wars certainly changed things; whether today’s will, remains uncertain.

Reward or Rehabilitation? Ban Ki‑moon Receives an Honour in Algiers That Raises Questions... 4881

Aziz Daouda, 1 mon.
- World Politics -
2 min read.
The gesture spoke as loudly as the medal. When Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune presented a “prestigious medal,” one of the nation’s highest distinctions, to Mr. Ban Ki‑moon, former UN secretary‑general, it was not merely a ceremonial protocol. It was a political message, heavy with intent. The question is to whom that message was addressed, why, and why now. On substance, the gesture is therefore troubling. Ban Ki‑moon, whose UN tenure remains associated with sensitive episodes in the Sahara dossier, was being honoured by a government that continues to fuel regional tensions and sustain a conflict whose contours are highly politicized. More than the medal itself, it was the media reception, the diplomatic embraces, the chosen silences that revealed the strategy behind the move: offering moral and international endorsement capable of whitewashing a once‑contested posture. Is this recognition, even belated, for services rendered? The recipient did not merely accept the distinction; he went further, lavishing praise on President Tebboune, commending his “leadership” and his action for “world peace.” Those words — “WORLD PEACE” — echoed loudly. Local media rejoiced. Beyond their courteous tone, these remarks raise a legitimate question: what motivates a former international official to be thus associated with a regime engaged in continuous confrontational diplomacy? Is it an acceptance of a symbolic role, political ambiguity, or a simple personal opportunity? The answer deserves scrutiny. From the Algerian side, the operation appears explicitly calculated. In international politics, nothing is free. A decoration is an image instrument, an attempt at symbolic rehabilitation. Algiers seems intent on multiplying visible supports — international figures, media, ceremonies — to contest the isolation of a diplomatic discourse losing traction. The choice of Ban Ki‑moon, given his UN past and past tensions with Rabat, is therefore far from innocent. It rather feeds the idea of a political or ideological closeness that some observers had already whispered about. This sequence above all highlights a strategic weakness: a diplomacy more oriented toward staging than toward concrete crisis resolution. While Morocco consolidates its partnerships, develops its Southern provinces and accumulates international recognitions of its sovereignty, Algiers appears to invest in symbols and image operations — practices inherited from an era when influence was measured in protocol and grand declarations rather than deeds. But the world has changed. Public opinion and governments now judge states on their ability to build, stabilize and produce prosperity, not on their capacity to hand out decorations. Algeria’s strategy, based on recycling former international actors and seeking diplomatic varnish, seems outdated in the face of concrete development and regional integration challenges. The most acute question remains: why now? Why does Tebboune honour Ban Ki‑moon at this precise moment — to revive a diplomatic narrative, to send a signal to Morocco, to address the UN, or simply as a domestic PR operation intended to mask internal difficulties? The most likely hypothesis is that it is a mix of all three, an attempt at international display to compensate for a deficit of real influence. In any case, these symbolic gestures neither promote peace in North Africa nor foster the emergence of a shared regional future. Worse, they risk cementing sterile polarization: a diplomacy of stagecraft versus a diplomacy of action. And perhaps that is ultimately the most worrying aspect. Algiers does not seem to be changing, even when cornered by international pressure. It remains faithful to its passivity and lack of initiative and hides behind symbols — here a decoration that tastes more like a belated reward, but a reward nonetheless. Ban Ki‑moon shows here that he was not neutral in the Sahara affair... The question that remains is: who will be the next to be decorated?

World Cup 2026: Sovereignty Reclaims Its Legitimate Rights... 4946

Aziz Daouda, 1 mon.
A few days ago I published an article titled “World Cup 2026: when states remind FIFA who really calls the shots.” I tried there to explain why a country’s sovereign laws cannot be overridden by the rules of an international association. Sovereignty and security are attributes of states and only of states. That the United States, in this case, refused entry on its soil to people who were supposed to participate in the FIFA World Cup is a decision solely for that country to make. President Infantino, powerless, will acquiesce and be forced to acknowledge the supremacy of American domestic law. He will need to remember that if, in 2030, Spain, Portugal or Morocco decide to impose specific visas or quotas on nationals of certain countries, or to deny entry to certain individuals. This time I was tempted to title the piece “When the United States reminds FIFA that it is only an association.” In the end I chose the headline you see at the top. In practice, this edition of the Football World Cup has become one of questioning principles, practices and habits long considered definitive and non‑negotiable. For years FIFA grew accustomed to imposing its conditions on countries hosting major competitions: tax exemptions, special legal regimes, administrative privileges, customs facilitation. Almost systematically, candidate states for hosting a World Cup often agreed to set aside part of their sovereignty to meet Zurich’s demands. But the United States has just reminded us of a fundamental truth: no private association, however powerful, stands above the laws of a sovereign state. The signals have multiplied in recent weeks: the case of the Somali referee turned away, the difficulties some delegations encountered obtaining visas, restrictions targeting supporters of several nationalities, limits on travel and stays imposed on Iranians, and Senegalese players confronted with the strictness of U.S. immigration and border controls. Each time the same conclusion is clear: American laws prevail over FIFA’s regulations. Today a new episode confirms that reality. In the United States, FIFA will have to pay taxes on income generated during the 2026 World Cup. A small revolution. Until now, FIFA typically demanded near‑total exemptions from host countries for its revenues. The billions of dollars generated by broadcast rights, marketing, partnerships and merchandise were largely shielded from national taxation before being transferred to the organization’s accounts in Switzerland. This time the scenario is different, and we must measure the symbolic weight of that decision. It means the United States regards FIFA not as an international organization or supranational institution, but simply as a private association conducting economic activity on American soil. Even Gianni Infantino — whose rise to the FIFA presidency owes much to the geopolitical balances that favored his candidacy — is discovering the limits of his power when faced with the American administration and the political will of President Donald Trump. The message is clear: American laws are non‑negotiable. This lesson deserves reflection from future host countries, notably Morocco, which will co‑host the 2030 World Cup with Spain and Portugal. Why should a sovereign state renounce legitimate tax revenues in favor of an organization already among the richest on the planet? I do not know the status of negotiations with FIFA for 2030, but the United States has opened our eyes and challenged decision‑makers in Spain, Portugal and Morocco about what rights to grant FIFA. Moroccan companies, Moroccan merchants, Moroccan employees and Moroccan taxpayers all meet their fiscal obligations. Should FIFA be exempt while it will be engaged in profitable economic activity here? The question must be asked plainly. When an economic activity generates income on Moroccan territory, it must contribute to financing the infrastructure, public services and investments that make hosting an event of this magnitude possible. That is the very basis of the social contract. The American example thus recalls an essential democratic principle: the internal rules of an international sporting federation can never override laws passed by a parliament representing the popular will. For too long, some international sports organizations have cultivated the idea that they constitute a sort of superior authority capable of imposing their norms on states. The United States has demonstrated the opposite. The World Cup belongs to FIFA. Sovereignty belongs to nations. If the two collide, national laws must prevail. That may be the most important political lesson already taught by World Cup 2026.

World Cup: when states remind FIFA who really calls the shots... 4973

Aziz Daouda, 1 mon.
- Politics - Society - Sports -
2.7 min read.
For several days now, with delegations gradually arriving in the United States, Mexico and Canada for the 2026 World Cup, part of international public opinion seems to be discovering a reality that is, however, far from new: the primacy of national laws over the regulations of international sporting bodies. The treatment recently meted out to certain African, Middle Eastern and other delegations has sparked indignation, debate and sometimes accusations of discrimination. Yet none of this is truly new. Those who know the history of international sport are aware that the great Western powers have never relinquished their sovereignty on security matters to federations and international sporting bodies. Moroccan sporting history is full of telling examples. As early as 1984, the Moroccan delegation to the Los Angeles Olympic Games spent hours blocked at the American airport because of security procedures. At the Sydney Games, Moroccan athletes, officials and accompanying staff underwent particularly rigorous checks after more than twenty‑four hours of travel: interminable searches, interrogations, luggage inspected down to the smallest detail. The great powers apply their laws with cold efficiency, regardless of the supposed prestige of the competitions. The corridors supposedly set up to speed up procedures are in reality true security airlocks, pushed to the extreme. Passengers who arrived on the same flights as the athletes clear the border much more quickly. Being a qualified athlete for an international competition does not entitle one to preferential treatment. Djokovic was refused entry to Australia because he was unvaccinated. He was indeed the world No. 1 in the ATP rankings and the Australian tournament needed him for more than one reason. The reality is simple: no serious state hands over its national security to FIFA, the IOC or any sporting organisation. It is legitimate for a host country to apply its own laws with heightened vigilance when it receives hundreds of thousands of people from around the world. Zero risk does not exist. Large sporting gatherings are potential targets for all kinds of threats. In this context, outraged reactions often seem disconnected from geopolitical realities. The Somali referee turned away at Miami airport despite his visa remains, above all, a national of a country subject to particular entry restrictions into the United States. The Iranian players represent a state in open confrontation with Washington, and it is known that the sporting delegations of some regimes are often closely supervised by their security or diplomatic apparatuses. In 2022, the United States hosted the World Athletics Championships in Eugene, the temple of the sport in North America. Athletes from more than twenty African countries were unable to obtain visas to take part. The president of the African Athletics Confederation, himself a member of World Athletics, was unable to travel to the United States. American laws prevailed over the minor rules of the international federation, (World Athletics) which supposedly obliges the host country to accept all qualified athletes and their accompanying persons on its territory. This is neither automatic racism nor gratuitous hostility. It is, first and foremost, state logic, sovereignty and security. The real problem lies elsewhere. It lies in the attitude of certain “third‑world” countries that continue to regard the specifications of the major sporting bodies as sacred and indisputable. In many developing countries, FIFA, the IOC and other federations impose sometimes absurd requirements in terms of architecture, luxury, urban planning or security organisation, without local authorities daring to truly challenge them. How ridiculous it is to see some members of FIFA or the IOC — to name only the most visible, sometimes of dubious competence — inspect hotels, airports, hospitals, buses, and even public toilets with unbearable arrogance. Yet these organisations are not global governments. They have no democratic legitimacy superior to that of states. Their regulations cannot prevail over laws passed by sovereign parliaments and enforced by national institutions accountable to their people. The normal mission of a continental or world sporting federation should be limited to technical matters, the rules of the game and the sporting organisation itself. Once it claims to dictate security policies, architectural choices, lavish expenditures or urban orientations to sovereign states, it clearly oversteps its remit. The 2026 World Cup perhaps reminds us of an essential truth many had forgotten: it is not states that belong to FIFA, but FIFA that depends on states. What would football be without the colossal budgets that governments dedicate to it, sometimes at the expense of other sectors that are arguably more pressing? Yet that same FIFA, whenever a government seeks to put its football in order, sometimes wages war on it. We should perhaps thank the United States, Mexico and Canada for reminding everyone of the true nature of this competition: a great sporting celebration, certainly, but not a supranational authority capable of erasing laws, borders and national sovereignty. Anyone who fantasizes about a World Cup of caprice and privileges should abstain. Consider yourselves warned. +

The spy and the monarchy: Postcolonial fantasies or the spy who frightens… the newsrooms 5490

Aziz Daouda, 1 mon.
- Politics -
2.5 min read.
'In Morocco, Mohammed VI’s spy who worries the palace,' better still: 'In Morocco, the secret war of Mohammed VI’s spies: there is an atmosphere of end of reign' — the headlines alone are enough to make one smile. Or rather to provoke a burst of laughter. Outrageous headlines that a certain French press loves when it comes to the Kingdom of Morocco: activist, ideologized, nostalgic for a time when Paris still believed it could hand out certificates of legitimacy to sovereign nations. There is something almost pathetic in this obsession. As soon as an obscure official, a former agent or a subordinate in breach appears somewhere between Madrid, Paris or Brussels, certain newspapers immediately start fantasizing about a faltering Moroccan monarchy, a worried palace, a kingdom on the verge of an earthquake. As if the Moroccan state, millennial in its roots, could be shaken by the wanderings of one man on the run. One must really know Morocco very poorly to imagine that, or perhaps be ill-intentioned and deeply afflicted with a genuine anti-monarchical syndrome. The Kingdom has gone through wars, plots, attempted coups, major regional crises, terrorism, the geopolitical upheavals of the Maghreb and the Sahel, and the Sahara affair manufactured out of whole cloth by a poorly inspired neighbor. And today they would like us to believe that an agent on the run could 'worry the king'? We are no longer in journalism; we are in a penny‑dreadful novel. What comes through above all, behind this kind of headline, is an old French fascination for the Moroccan monarchy. A century-old fascination, mixed with incomprehension and often envy. And it is understandable: the Kingdom of Morocco is bewitching, fascinating. It has been and will remain so forever. Its monarchy is millennial. Along with those of Japan and Great Britain, it exerts an irresistible fascination everywhere in the world and for many in France. France, for its part, decapitated its king in an unbelievable excess of zeal, dressed up as a people's revolution; a narrative invented from scratch which, in reality, no one fully believes. It spent centuries seeking replacement figures: emperors, providential presidents, strongmen, republican monarchies in disguise. This country is deeply monarchic. Meanwhile, the Moroccan monarchy remained standing, rooted, respected and deeply linked to the country's history. A monarchy wanted, almost fusionally, by a whole people. Morocco is the oldest durable nation-state in the world. This bothers certain French ideological circles who dream of seeing the fall of traditional institutions everywhere, especially when they still function and retain popular support. A certain nostalgia resurfaces on the occasion. The most comical thing remains the tendency of this press, for a long time now, to turn every minor affair into a 'state scandal'. An individual flees? It immediately becomes 'the palace earthquake'. A hostile book appears? They announce 'the end of the regime'. An influencer posts a video? Some already see an imminent revolution. The trouble is that this press spares nothing, not even resorting to blackmail of the Kingdom, even if it gets caught red-handed. Meanwhile, Morocco moves forward. The country builds its infrastructures, develops its industries, invests massively in renewable energies, prepares for the 2030 World Cup, strengthens its diplomatic presence in Africa and consolidates its strategic partnerships with the world's great powers, including France. The country has solid institutions that it advances and evolves at its own pace in the service of its people. But all this interests certain editors less than the grotesque staging of a pseudo-'spy' supposed to make Rabat tremble. There is, in this affair, a mixture of ignorance, arrogance and postcolonial fantasy: as if Morocco must forever be viewed through the prism of Oriental intrigues, obscure palaces and sensationalist narratives intended to feed a shrinking readership, hungry for clichés. The reality is much simpler: serious states do not collapse because an agent deserts, speaks or flees. Otherwise no power in the world would survive long. His Majesty KING Mohammed VI certainly did not wait for French editorialists craving sensation to understand that services, rivalries and betrayals exist in all countries of the world. The difference is that in Morocco the State continues to function while others manufacture sensational headlines to mask the emptiness of their thinking. You understood, I spoke of the wanderings of 'Libération' and 'l'Express', two French newspapers, of a drifting left, that the upcoming state visit of the Moroccan sovereign to Paris and the historic agreements that will be signed on the occasion disturb a lot. Relations between the two countries have taken a step and will be stronger than ever regardless — to the displeasure of a certain press and its probable sponsors.