As consequence of this exile “Mohammad V appealed to the rural local armies which had once posed a threat to his rule by organizing them around the issue of Moroccan nationalism.” Furthermore, he kept on building alliances “using pre-existing colonial structures and appeals to the rural elite.”
In that event and upon independence, the now King Mohammad V attained total control from the French colonial regime. The monarchy as the utter representative of the institution already benefited from religious legitimacy as well as a new popularity that came from endorsing the independence movement. According to Suzan Miller (2013) “the king’s pre-existing alliances with the rural elite, the monarchy also enjoyed control over both armed groups within …show more content…
the Makhzen) or the monarchy specifically.” As far as this analysis and the corresponding research shows, it was unlikely to happen; especially since the solidification of the monarch’s power under Hassan II would have encouraged the top brass of the military to express their opinions on the issue of political reform. Additionally, and succeeding the “constitutional reform period of 2011-2012,” the monarchy had also “limited the military’s power further by initiating a process of military justice reform.” Explicitly, the military justice system can “no longer try civilians and military personnel caught in common crimes (such as corruption) do not have the advantage of being tried by their own institution, for obvious reasons.” Furthermore, organizations as the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reports, “the official anti-corruption strategy does not include mention of the Royal Armed Forces, the military justice measures indicate an effort to include the military in general reforms.” Consequently we can notice and understand why the army’s leadership has not publicly articulated any disagreement over this decision by the king, in opposition to the Jordanian …show more content…
Powerful positions such as the defense minister are not just intended to stay vacant in a perpetual attempt to contrive the constitution, this office has simply been eliminated. This report showed “the chain of command between the state and the military has been altered institutionally, making future change much less possible.” Therefore the king remains as the sole power responsible for the military establishment and decisions relating to it. The function of the military establishment in determining the outcome of political instability cannot be downplayed, and this commentary sheds some light in understanding the state of present-day monarchical regimes and in clarifying why they have
In that event and upon independence, the now King Mohammad V attained total control from the French colonial regime. The monarchy as the utter representative of the institution already benefited from religious legitimacy as well as a new popularity that came from endorsing the independence movement. According to Suzan Miller (2013) “the king’s pre-existing alliances with the rural elite, the monarchy also enjoyed control over both armed groups within …show more content…
the Makhzen) or the monarchy specifically.” As far as this analysis and the corresponding research shows, it was unlikely to happen; especially since the solidification of the monarch’s power under Hassan II would have encouraged the top brass of the military to express their opinions on the issue of political reform. Additionally, and succeeding the “constitutional reform period of 2011-2012,” the monarchy had also “limited the military’s power further by initiating a process of military justice reform.” Explicitly, the military justice system can “no longer try civilians and military personnel caught in common crimes (such as corruption) do not have the advantage of being tried by their own institution, for obvious reasons.” Furthermore, organizations as the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reports, “the official anti-corruption strategy does not include mention of the Royal Armed Forces, the military justice measures indicate an effort to include the military in general reforms.” Consequently we can notice and understand why the army’s leadership has not publicly articulated any disagreement over this decision by the king, in opposition to the Jordanian …show more content…
Powerful positions such as the defense minister are not just intended to stay vacant in a perpetual attempt to contrive the constitution, this office has simply been eliminated. This report showed “the chain of command between the state and the military has been altered institutionally, making future change much less possible.” Therefore the king remains as the sole power responsible for the military establishment and decisions relating to it. The function of the military establishment in determining the outcome of political instability cannot be downplayed, and this commentary sheds some light in understanding the state of present-day monarchical regimes and in clarifying why they have