Budget of the Mahdia Municipality 2026: Controversial Priorities and Minimal Investment in Human Resources
The 2026 budget proposal for the Mahdia municipality in the Kenitra region has sparked widespread debate among citizens and local activists following the disclosure of spending details during the recent October council meeting. The controversy centers on the significant gap between the funds allocated for the most vulnerable groups and those directed toward symbolic and recreational activities, raising sharp criticisms regarding spending priorities and financial management transparency.
According to budget details, the municipality allocated 60,000 dirhams for purchasing rodenticides, 100,000 dirhams for insecticides, and 800,000 dirhams for grants aimed at underprivileged groups, compared to 200,000 dirhams for the employees’ association and 2.2 million dirhams for park and forest maintenance. Additionally, the budget included 150,000 dirhams for the president’s travel expenses within the country, 400,000 dirhams for decorative equipment, 140,000 dirhams for event equipment rentals, and 100,000 dirhams for trophies, gifts, and prizes. Cultural and artistic activities were allocated 600,000 dirhams, while the budget for organizing seminars and training featured 15,000 dirhams for reception, 15,000 dirhams for accommodation and food, and 60,000 dirhams for activity expenses. The municipality set aside only 10,000 dirhams for ongoing training for its employees.
The allocation of just 10,000 dirhams for employee training raises numerous questions, especially as all studies have proven that investing in human resources is one of the key factors for successful administration. Developing employees’ skills and preparing them to face challenges enhances the effectiveness of every dirham spent on equipment and materials, ensuring long-term results. Here, one must ask: how can a municipality president contribute to the development of the community he leads while not believing in investing in human resources?
Local activists assert that this distribution reflects a “glaring imbalance in spending priorities,” emphasizing that expenditures on symbolic and cultural activities should not come at the expense of supporting deserving groups. They consider the current financial management as “far from responsibility and transparency.”
This matter opens a broad discussion on the necessity of revising the criteria for selecting beneficiaries of grants and projects, as well as reassessing spending priorities to better serve the needs of the local community and ensure fairness in the distribution of public funds.
