Morocco’s diaspora council: public purpose requires demonstrable results

An institution earns lasting confidence through the clarity of its purpose and the evidence of its contribution. For a body concerned with Moroccans abroad, that responsibility extends beyond maintaining a public presence. It requires showing how research, consultation and advice serve the people whose interests it addresses.

The Council of the Moroccan Community Abroad, the CCME, should be assessed on that basis: with respect for its mandate and with a firm expectation of accountability.

Established in December 2007 and recognised in the 2011 Constitution, the Council has an advisory and forward-looking role in policies concerning Moroccans overseas. Almost nineteen years later, asking how its recommendations have influenced decisions is a reasonable measure of institutional maturity.

Acknowledge the work, examine its consequences

The public record does not support a claim of complete inactivity. The Council reports publications on migrant remittances and migration and culture, as well as support for the Arabesques festival in Montpellier. Such activities also contradict an absolute claim that it has no international presence.

Research and cultural engagement can make valuable contributions. Preserving migration histories and developing knowledge should not be dismissed because their benefits are difficult to quantify.

Yet an advisory institution must also explain how this work connects to public decisions. Which recommendations were considered? Which were adopted? What obstacles remained unresolved? Where advice was rejected, what explanation followed?

These questions distinguish an account of activity from an assessment of influence.

International engagement needs a visible policy pathway

The Council is neither a consulate nor a diplomatic mission. It cannot reasonably be held responsible for every administrative difficulty or individual dispute affecting a Moroccan abroad.

Its mandate does, however, invite scrutiny of how concerns from countries of residence enter its work. Citizens should be able to understand how priorities are selected, how communities are consulted and how their concerns become proposals.

The institutional presentation, resources and news pages reviewed for this commentary document activities. They did not reveal a consolidated account systematically tracing recommendations through to policy outcomes. That finding is confined to the pages examined; it does not establish that no other records exist. It does justify a request to make those records accessible.

Giving practical effect to His Majesty the King’s direction

In the address of 6 November 2024, His Majesty King Mohammed VI set out an institutional reorganisation centred on an autonomous advisory Council and a Mohammedia Foundation intended to carry the operational dimension of diaspora policy.

This direction calls for a clear allocation of responsibilities. Expertise, decision-making and implementation should each be identifiable. The ambition expressed by His Majesty the King is best served when citizens can understand how it is being translated into institutional practice.

Madam Head of Government, a public clarification would give this debate the precision it needs. The executive should explain the legislative position, the stages of reorganisation and its treatment of recommendations falling within its responsibilities.

The Council’s autonomy must be respected. The government should not replace its governing bodies, nor should it be assigned sole responsibility for its record. But autonomy does not prevent either institution from explaining its own work.

An accessible assessment would set out objectives, resources, recommendations, responses and results. It would acknowledge difficulties as carefully as achievements.

Bureaucratic drift becomes a concern when procedures acquire greater prominence than the public purpose they are meant to serve. Clear responsibilities and open evaluation offer a substantive response.

Moroccans abroad can understand that reform takes time and that advice may not always be adopted. They are entitled to an explanation.

The most persuasive defence of an institution is a contribution that citizens can examine for themselves.