Polarization in Morocco: a failed gamble
- This is how Benkirane spoke
- A deliberate discursive strategy
- The Palestinian question to fuel polarization
- The opposition between “us” and “them”
- Moroccan immunity to polarization
It was not the depth of his social criticism or the originality of his demands that gave this speech such visibility, but rather its highly controversial nature and inappropriate verbal violence. Unlike the other speeches, which focused, as is customary on this occasion, on denouncing the government's social policies and defending workers' rights, the newly re-elected secretary general of the PJD took the opportunity to wield the Palestinian cause as a weapon to discredit his opponents. It was this strategy that made his virulent speech the focus of almost all journalistic commentary and social media.
This is how Benkirane spoke
"Today we have among us some, how shall we call them? Microbes! Microbes... I have found the right name for them, microbes in politics, microbes in the media, microbes in certain official or semi-official bodies, microbes! They came out saying: ‘No, sir, we are Moroccans, we have nothing to do with Palestine’. Donkey!... Donkey!... Donkey of the end times! Haven't you read history? Don't you know what happened in al-Andalus? When this emirate began to say, ‘I have nothing to do with that other emirate,’ until they were all wiped out, donkey!"
This is how Benkirane spoke in Casablanca in front of his supporters on Labor Day, and all the sensible voices in this country asked themselves: what led a political leader and former head of government, who was supposed to embody responsibility and moderation, to resort to such verbal vulgarity? How could he have reached such a level of extreme provocation and unprecedented rudeness, far exceeding the limits of what is acceptable in public debate?
The Moroccan public's astonishment at the Islamist activist's speech was immediate and profound. Many were shocked by the unusual virulence of his statements. The use of insulting terms such as “microbes” or “donkey” towards his fellow citizens was widely perceived as a serious gaffe, a flagrant contempt for his political opponents, even a painful blow to the concept of politics itself, which sparked a huge wave of indignation on social media and in the media.
This statement was even more surprising considering that Benkirane, as the former number two in the state, is expected to be reserved and open-minded, especially in a context where Moroccan society expects its leaders to be exemplary in their words and attitudes. Several voices, including public figures and opinion leaders, have highlighted the inappropriateness of such language from a statesman, recalling that the duty to respect the ethics of public debate means that respect for citizens takes precedence over partisan disputes and political score-settling.
When the political leader uses the term “microbes” to refer to those who do not share his ideological perception of the Palestinian cause, he seeks, through this biological metaphor, to dehumanize his political opponent, reducing him to something harmful, inferior, insignificant, and to be eliminated, which is a classic feature of hate speech that encourages the stigmatization and marginalization of those who express a different opinion.
The repeated use of insults (“donkey”) aims to publicly humiliate those who distance themselves from his ideological line on the Palestinian question, creating a climate of intimidation and fear. This rhetoric seeks to discourage any expression of a different opinion, equating difference with ignorance or treason.
The clumsy use of the history of al-Andalus serves here to legitimize the position of Islamist discourse, suggesting that failure to express unconditional support for Hamas at this time, or favoring a certain priority for Morocco's strategic interests without excluding support for the Palestinian cause, would lead to a collective catastrophe such as the fall of al-Andalus. This type of historical manipulation fuels fear and justifies radical discourse.
Reactions to Abdelilah Benkirane's speech focused largely on its formal aspects, its clumsy and indecent style, its strangely vulgar vocabulary, its extremely radical language, and its tone, which was far removed from the standards expected of a former head of government. It was precisely the terms used, such as “microbes” and “donkeys,” that shocked people with their violence and contempt for public opinion. Some commentators, expressing deep unease about these scandalous statements, pointed out that they only tarnish the image of their author.
A deliberate discursive strategy
But beyond the linguistic level of this speech, and without it being a simple ordinary scene of catharsis, steeped in mockery, hatred, and hurtful insults, this violent rhetoric seems to respond to a carefully deliberate discursive strategy. Benkirane carefully chooses the words that best serve to promote his message, a message that focuses on the polarization of Moroccan society along identity lines as a strategy that allows the party to reposition itself and gain prominence on the political scene.
For the Islamist leader, betting on a new ideological polarization based on identity and emotion consists of pitting the “authentic Moroccans,” those who “have Islam running through their veins” and are therefore the only true supporters of the Palestinian cause, against the rest of Moroccans, whom he does not hesitate to describe as “microbes,” “donkeys,” and “idiots.” This alarmist and aggressive rhetoric aims to mobilize a militant base around a discourse of rupture, exploiting religious sentiments and fears, while discrediting his opponents and exacerbating divisions within society.
This is a conscious choice of excess and provocation, which is part of a logic of political reconquest based on victimization and identity confrontation, carried out through mobilization propaganda that seeks to divide society into two antagonistic camps: on the one hand, the “authentic” Moroccans in solidarity with Palestine through their unconditional support for Hamas, and on the other side, the “microbes,” accused of betraying the sacred cause. This logic of polarization is typical of political strategies that seek to mobilize a militant base by designating an internal enemy, excluding any nuance or democratic debate.
Polarization, in sociology and political science, refers to the division of society into opposing, often antagonistic, groups over identity, economic, social, or political issues. This phenomenon can lead to internal fragmentation, a breakdown of social cohesion, and a feeling of opposition between “them” and “us.”
However, polarization is not necessarily intentional; it can be the result of social, economic, or political dynamics, sometimes fueled by certain actors who do not systematically aim to divide society from within. It can also be the result of a deliberate desire to intentionally provoke social fracture, aggravate tensions, and make political action more conflictual.
This deliberate desire to promote political polarization can be linked mainly to internal political actors who, for their own interests, foment social division to gain power. However, the possible involvement of foreign actors who, with strategic objectives, could also be driving this polarization to weaken national cohesion and affect the country's stability cannot be ruled out.
It should be remembered in this regard that political discourse that deliberately seeks to fuel polarization and foment discord is part of a strategy inspired by principles from the ancient Chinese treatise Sun Tzu's The Art of War, especially its emphasis on psychological warfare and destabilizing the adversary without the need for direct confrontation. Sun Tzu stresses the importance of defeating the enemy without fighting, using deception, disorganization, and internal division to weaken them morally and strategically, sowing discord in the enemy's ranks and exploiting their weaknesses to unbalance them.
This indirect strategy of destabilizing society by acting on its fears, emotions, and psychological vulnerabilities would consist, in the Moroccan context, of fueling identity polarization, which generates internal division and manipulates public opinion, creating false perceptions of an “us against them” scenario, of an open confrontation between two opposing blocs, the supposed defenders of the Palestinian cause, the “militant kufyatistas,” and the supposed supporters of normalization, the “pro-Zionist microbes.”
The Palestinian question to fuel polarization
Feeding political polarization by exploiting the Palestinian question is one of the contemporary ways of applying Sun Tzu's strategy, which seeks to weaken the adversary through division and internal conflict, avoiding direct confrontation and maximizing strategic advantage through control of the narrative and psychological manipulation.
How does Benkirane's discourse generate polarization? It's simple: if the other person thinks what they think, it's because, at best, they are ignorant (they don't know what happened in al-Andalus) or, at worst, they are stupid (dumb) or insignificant (microbe).
He plays the caricature while radically refraining from the openness to others that is so crucial in democracy, and at the same time, he shows his teeth when he tends to normalize hatred and verbal violence in the public sphere, thereby making the exclusion and dehumanization of others (microbes, donkeys) acceptable as ways of managing political disagreement.
When someone is referred to as a “microbe” in metaphorical use, it is an insult that seeks to denigrate and dehumanize the individual by reducing them to an insignificant, harmful, and repugnant element, like a pathogenic microorganism. This metaphor exploits the idea that microbes are invisible to the naked eye, invasive, and a source of disease and discomfort, to signify that the person is perceived as a parasite, an undesirable element, or an obstacle to the society or group being targeted. It is therefore a form of metonymy that reduces human complexity to a one-dimensional negative characteristic, reinforcing the insulting effect through devaluation and stigmatization.
This is how normal and healthy political rivalry in a democracy ceases to be a simple confrontation between two projects for society and becomes ideological polarization, where disagreement becomes radicalized and transforms into a deep and irreconcilable division.
According to researchers of this sociopolitical phenomenon, political polarization is characterized by two key phenomena: ideological polarization, where political positions diverge sharply from one another, excluding intermediate positions, and affective polarization, marked by emotional aversion and intense mistrust between opposing groups.
The term polarization, which is very present in today's international politics and media, refers, in its most common sense, to a social phenomenon of division of the population into two opposing groups that are increasingly distant and do not share the same values or worldview. One of the main factors influencing the polarization process is the excessive and demagogic simplification of reality, which leads to confrontation, a lack of mutual understanding, and the dehumanization of the adversary.
Therefore, the May 1 speech delivered by the PJD secretary general, with all its linguistic techniques and metaphorical ingredients, is part of a logic of radicalization of public debate, where the political adversary is no longer a legitimate adversary but a “microbe” to be eradicated. This discourse undermines pluralism and social cohesion while fueling a climate of hatred and fear that is incompatible with the irreversible democratic choice in Morocco.
The opposition between “us” and “them”
The temptation to polarize public opinion on sensitive issues is not limited to Morocco, but is part of a global phenomenon affecting many countries around the world. In the United States, France, Germany, and Spain, political polarization has intensified in recent years, creating a deep ideological divide between different political and social forces. This fragmentation, often exacerbated by social media and the media, fuels increasingly radical and identitarian discourses, where confrontation takes precedence over dialogue.
In this international context marked by rising geopolitical tensions and armed conflicts, the strategy of some political actors, such as Abdelilah Benkirane in Morocco, is to exploit sensitive causes—in this case, the Palestinian question—to reinforce identity polarization, pitting a glorified “us” against a stigmatized “them.”
Within this dynamic, political actors do not limit themselves to discussing ideas or programs, but begin to demonize their opponents, considering them not as legitimate rivals, but as enemies to be eliminated from the political game. This phenomenon is often accompanied by hysterical rhetoric and a rejection of the compromises necessary for democratic functioning.
A recent study, after revealing that over the past 40 years US citizens have developed more negative feelings toward members of the opposing party, concluded that political polarization in American society is not simply an ideological disagreement; it represents a deep crisis that threatens the very fabric of American democracy.
Its causes are complex and varied. They involve changes in the media, social dynamics, and electoral structures. The consequences are serious and range from legislative paralysis to increased political violence.
In Spain, the results of the IV National Survey on Political Polarization conclude that the level of affective polarization has increased significantly between 2021 and 2024, by 30.6%. Political parties are increasingly distancing themselves in their ideological and territorial positions, while negative feelings among voters of different parties are among the most intense in the world.
To explain the numerous causes of polarization in pluralistic democracies, Austrian political scientist and author Markus Pausch points out that polarization processes arise from structural and ideological factors. Very often, structural reasons drive ideological action. Its actors may or may not be democratic in their goals and methods.
For Spanish sociologist Luis Miller, the fact that many societies in countries with democratic systems are currently more polarized than in previous decades reflects a phenomenon that has emerged mainly since the Great Financial Crisis that began in 2007 and 2008, which has triggered intense internal conflicts in several countries.
Miller highlights the United Kingdom's decision to leave the European Union, as well as the storming of the United States Capitol, as echoes of situations of extreme polarization in those countries. These are dynamics of socio-political confrontation that lead to identity-based and emotional polarization of political parties, and therefore to a deep division of society into two irreconcilable blocs based on social or cultural identities, rather than on concrete programmatic or ideological differences. This polarization simplifies political complexity into an “us versus them” confrontation, where each side sees the other as an existential threat to the nation or its way of life.
Dutch philosopher Bart Brandsma, who coined this concept, argues that polarization can easily lead to a dynamic of violence that harms people, spreads fear, arouses terror, and can even kill. To characterize polarization, Brandsma does not hesitate to formulate three “fundamental laws.” The first law is that polarization is a “mental construct,” the opposition of ‘us’ and “them.” It is not observable in reality, it is an abstraction, based essentially on identities, even if these are real groups (men and women, Europeans and immigrants, defenders and opponents of secularism, etc.). The shift towards polarization occurs when these differences are accompanied by meanings that are presented as typical of the identities in question.
The second law suggests that polarization needs constant “fuel”; if you stop feeding it, its intensity will diminish and eventually die out. The third law states that polarization is governed by an “emotional dynamic,” which explains why argumentation, whether factual or rational, has little effect on it, and why there is a tendency to resort to conspiracy theories.
In light of these three laws of polarization formulated by Bart Brandsma, one may question the ability of the Islamist leader to polarize Moroccan public opinion. Could Benkirane, based on his discursive strategy, create a mental opposition between “us” and “them” in Moroccan society and constantly fuel this division with emotional and conspiratorial rhetoric that seeks to radicalize public debate and accentuate ideological divisions?
Moroccan immunity to polarization
Benkirane's excessive polarizing rhetoric, in addition to being widely criticized, was seen as a sign of political exhaustion on the part of a leader struggling to regain legitimacy in a Moroccan political scene that has been profoundly renewed since his party's electoral defeat.
By attempting to position itself as the political party defending the Palestinian cause, it is not only clumsily exploiting a sensitive issue, but also diverting attention from the real national concerns of the Moroccan people, which has further heightened public unrest.
It should be noted here that the Moroccan party landscape is often described as a political space marked by divisions between left and right, conservatives and modernists, but this divide has always been and remains limited and less radical than in other countries in the region.
Morocco has managed to maintain a degree of political stability and social cohesion through a complex multiparty system, a moderate approach to Islam that promotes dialogue and coexistence, and a strong constitutional monarchy where the King, as stipulated in the constitution, is the "Supreme Representative of the Nation, Symbol of its unity. Guaranteeing the permanence and continuity of the state, he ensures respect for Islam and the Constitution. He is the protector of the rights and freedoms of citizens, social groups, and communities."
The “immunity” that exists in Morocco to extreme polarization can also be explained by the prudent management of identity and religious tensions, in particular through the protection of the religious sphere by the institution of the Command of the Faithful, an active institution and an essential component of Moroccan national identity, which promotes a moderate and tolerant Islam. Unlike other neighboring countries where polarization has led to deep crises, Morocco has thus managed to contain divisions through a model of peaceful political alternation and a political culture that favors dialogue and consensus.
It should be recalled in this context that the Plan for the Integration of Women in Development, particularly through the reform of the Family Code (mudawana), had created a significant risk of political polarization, symbolized by the contrast between the two large demonstrations organized in March 2000, that of the Islamists in Casablanca and that of the “modernists” in Rabat.
This division reflected a deep rift between a conservative model linked to tradition and a modernist model that values individual rights and women's freedom. However, King Mohammed VI, playing his central and decisive role at this crucial moment, was able to listen to the different sensibilities, creating a space for dialogue between modernists and traditionalists and thus preventing tensions between these two currents from degenerating into major political clashes.
To avoid political polarization and preserve social cohesion, the King promoted a progressive and inclusive process that recognizes religious values while supporting women's rights.
These immunity mechanisms, which enable the country to preserve national cohesion in the face of the risk of polarization observed elsewhere, and especially the role of the monarchy and the culture of consensus and moderation, act as a system of self-regulation that promotes tolerance, dialogue, and peaceful coexistence, thereby neutralizing extreme and unilateral positions and rendering any polarizing discourse a losing proposition.