Where Have Our Ministers Gone? When the Operational State Fills in for a Silent Government... 284
The recent floods provided a striking demonstration of the effectiveness of Morocco's security and territorial apparatus. On the high instructions of His Majesty King Mohammed VI, agents from the Ministry of the Interior, elements of the Royal Armed Forces, and various intervention forces mobilized impressive human and logistical resources in just a few hours. Nearly 180,000 people were evacuated, transported, and relocated from disaster-stricken areas with a speed that commanded admiration, including abroad. In Portugal, for example, where some observers praised Morocco's promptness, deputies heatedly questioned the government over its handling of the country's own floods, urging it to take a leaf out of the Moroccans' crisis management book.
But behind this undeniable efficiency lies a disturbing question: where were the other ministers and their bloated departments? Especially those in charge of social affairs and solidarity.
The Moroccan government is not limited to the sovereign ministries alone. It includes numerous ministries officially responsible for social affairs, solidarity, inclusion, family, territorial cohesion, and the fight against precariousness. Yet once again, these departments shone by their absence. No notable initiatives. No visible measures. Not even reassuring communication. Silence as the only response to the distress of those affected and the justified curiosity of citizens.
This is not an isolated episode. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the bulk of the response had already rested on the security architecture and exceptional mechanisms driven from the highest levels of the State. During the El Haouz earthquake, the same scenario: remarkable mobilization of rescue forces and territorial administration, but worrying silence from several departments supposed to embody national solidarity.
This repetition raises questions. It challenges not only the performance of the current government but also the very architecture of our successive governments. What is the point of an inflation of ministries if, in critical moments, they are invisible? What good is multiplying state secretariats, attached agencies, and thematic departments if their real impact is undetectable when the country faces a trial?
The debate is not ideological; it is budgetary and ethical. Every ministry, every cabinet, every central directorate represents salaries, vehicles, premises, operating expenses. When these structures provide no measurable added value, they become budget-devouring. They absorb public resources without tangible return for the citizen.
Some provocatively invoke Argentine President Javier Milei's "chainsaw." Obviously, this is not about caricaturally copying foreign models, and certainly not that one. But the question of rationalizing the governmental apparatus deserves to be raised seriously. An effective government is not a hypertrophic, colossal one; it is a coherent, streamlined, responsible, and efficient formation.
Beyond the symbolism, there is a macroeconomic stake. A civil servant or high official paid without measurable output mechanically contributes to unproductive public spending. When public spending rises without corresponding wealth creation, it fuels imbalances, tax pressure, and ultimately inflation. Distributing income financed by taxes or debt to structures that produce neither tangible services nor social efficiency weakens the purchasing power of the very citizens one claims to protect. An unacceptable, unfair contradiction. God knows the subject is sensitive. The Moroccan citizen is not happy with price hikes and the erosion of his purchasing power.
With the September elections approaching, political parties can no longer settle for sectoral promises and catalogs of social programs. They must commit to reforming the governmental architecture itself: reducing the number of departments, clarifying competencies, mandating results, and public evaluation of performance.
The next head of government and all those aspiring to be—should clearly announce their visions: how many ministries? With what precise missions? According to what performance indicators? And above all: with what political responsibility in case of inaction during crises?
It is time to break with the logic of satisfying partisan balances at the expense of public efficiency. Multiplying posts to appease coalitions can no longer be financed by the taxpayer with impunity and without real counterpart. Every public dirham must be justified.
The exemplary mobilization of intervention forces proves that the Moroccan State knows how to act with rigor and speed when the chain of command is clear and responsibility is assumed. The government, for its part, must now prove that it can exist beyond its organigram.
Citizens, finally, bear a share of responsibility. Voting should not just be an act of adherence to slogans, but a rational choice in favor of sober, effective, and responsible governance. The stakes go beyond the conjuncture: they concern the sustainability of our public finances and the credibility of our institutional model.
The question thus remains, simple and relentless: in moments when the nation faces great difficulty, as is the case today, who really acts, who coasts along, contenting themselves with existing on paper and collecting salaries and perks without reason?