The Bankirania Zaouia: Followers in Submission to the Sheikh’s Whims
The latest episode of "The Sofa Talk," presented by journalist Najiba Jalal, highlights a growing political wound. It addresses the phenomenon of Abdelilah Benkirane’s transformation from a political leader into a psychological case steeped in delusions of grandeur, at a time when his party’s environment seems to have lost its capacity for critique and evaluation.
What Jalal articulated was not merely a personal opinion; it was an accurate description of an escalating situation within the Justice and Development Party (PJD). A party that is supposed to be a democratic institution has today become more akin to a religious zaouia, where followers revolve around their leader as if he were an infallible being. This critical perspective seeks to dismantle this absolute loyalty and to raise the questions that many evade.
One does not need to look far for stark examples of how Benkirane’s followers have turned into disciples ardently defending everything he says, even when it involves unjustified insults or inappropriate slurs. For instance, when Benkirane labeled the French president as "subservient," referencing what he considered a lackluster stance on the Palestinian issue, his followers swiftly reframed the insult as a “brave stance” and a “defense of sacred matters.”
It is curious to note that France is one of Morocco’s largest international supporters regarding the Western Sahara issue, making such an insult politically illogical, even potentially damaging to national interests. Yet, the followers did not engage with this contradiction; instead, they celebrated their leader’s boldness, as if politics had devolved into a competition of insults and fiery rhetoric.
When Benkirane referred to his political opponents as “donkeys,” the insult was transformed in the eyes of his followers into a “wisdom” to be defended. Some even went beyond mere support, joining in the offensive and adding their own insults, as if the political struggle had turned into a realm of personal squabbles rather than intellectual debate.
The question arises: Where are the principles of political dialogue? Where is the respect for opponents, which should be foundational to any mature political endeavor?
The issue lies not in Benkirane’s words, but in the mentality that justifies everything he utters, even when it is a grave mistake. More dangerously, the party has shifted from a space for collective political action to a mere extension of Benkirane’s persona. Decisions are no longer made through democratic mechanisms; they have become edicts issued by the sheikh, enacted by his followers without scrutiny.
Internal debate has been stifled, dissenters labeled as outcasts, and loyalty to the person has become a condition for survival. Just as in Sufi orders, where disciples take an oath of obedience, members of the Bankirania zaouia have turned into mere followers who turn their backs on any principle that contradicts the words of the sheikh.
This model does not only kill democracy within the party; it also poses a threat to politics as a whole. Instead of learning a culture of dialogue and respect for differing opinions, the youth are being taught that success hinges on blind submission to the leader. Rather than the party being a school of competence and integrity, it has become a marketplace for loyalties and positions.
The pressing question remains: When was the last time the Justice and Development Party discussed an important decision freely and transparently? When was the last time its leadership’s performance was assessed with professionalism?
