13 billion dirhams… When numbers turn into electoral ammunition!
The figure that resonated in the public sphere: 13 billion dirhams. It was not merely a financial statistic; it transformed into fuel for an early electoral battle. Sudden inflation, organized exaggeration, and an intentional ride on the wave of bidding wars. Everything succumbed to cheap political calculations, even the support for red meat—which was a temporary measure to protect the purchasing power of Moroccans—was presented as if it were a crime against the nation.
Directed journalism, urgent speeches, and party horns crying out from every direction, as if public decision-making became a scapegoat for failure, and the support fund became a sack for collective looting. The lie has been repeated to the point of turning into a “fake truth” that some treat as if it were revealed scripture. But the reality, as confirmed by official figures, is entirely different: what was actually spent did not exceed 437 million dirhams, not 13 billion as is being promoted. But who cares about the truth when sensationalism is more enticing?
The support was not a whim or a backstage deal; it was a strategic choice necessitated by a severe crisis: ongoing drought, skyrocketing feed prices, and a sharp decline in the national livestock. The state moved to restore balance to the market, not to feed speculation. Yet in the era of populism, even rescue is portrayed as a conspiracy.
Investors were intimidated, and they were prevented from importing under the pressure of the ready-made accusation: “suspicious beneficiary.” The result? Less than a million heads were imported in two years, against a national need of about 12 million heads annually. How could such a meager number reduce prices? And how can intervention succeed amid this cacophony?
Then there are those who portray the support as a failure because it did not impact prices. This reflects a double ignorance of the market and intervention policies. The goal was not to lower prices but to prevent them from exploding, to ensure supply, and to allow for the renewal of the national herd; the market understands only the language of stability and trust, the latter of which has been slaughtered by the disinformation campaign.
The decision not to slaughter the sacrifices this year was not a result of failure, but rather a precise sovereign choice that considers the fragility of the social and economic situation, and does not overlook the reality of purchasing power. Linking the decision to the support, as some do, is a gymnastic leap over reality and a blatant manipulation of the context.
Then there are those who turn the discussion into personal trials, where institutions are measured by the names of their officials, as if we were in a poorly made series judging roles rather than policies. This is a systematic effort to fragment public discourse and a prelude to a dirty electoral war where truth is buried under a pile of accusations.
As for the calls for investigation raised whenever the opposition fails to convince, they are rights intended for evil purposes. We are not in a republic devoid of institutions, nor in a country absent of oversight and accountability. However, turning every initiative into suspicion and every support into spoils is nonsense that only serves the merchants of electoral anger.
Yes, we have entered an electoral year, but what is happening does not bode well for democratic maturity, rather it heralds chaos led by voices instead of ideas, and fed by illusions instead of numbers. Those who are sincere in fighting corruption should start by combating distortion… because the truth, unfortunately, is the first victim of this early race towards destruction.
