The Phenomenon of Seasonal Electoral Migration
The journey from Azrou to Sefrou, or from Berkane to Agadir, reflects a curious trend among candidates as they strategically select their electoral battlegrounds akin to travelers seeking available accommodations during peak season. Abdelfettah Lahjomri, known for his incisive commentary, delves into the early maneuvers of these political aspirants, highlighting a seasonal electoral migration that undermines the concept of local rootedness. Candidates, like migratory birds, flit from one constituency to another, driven not by a quest for the most temperate climate but rather by the search for the most advantageous electoral territory.
As the contours of an electoral autumn begin to take shape—despite the official campaign launch still on the horizon—some candidates have chosen to preemptively engage in a race without clear boundaries, eager to garner applause before the audience even understands what merits such applause. This trend reflects a shift in candidacies, moving away from deep-rooted connections to localities, a nuanced understanding of community challenges, or long-standing commitments to social, economic, and cultural issues. In many cases, mere signals of opportunity can quickly transform a city into a constituency ripe for investment. Consequently, the focus has shifted from what candidates can offer to Sefrou, Agadir, Berkane, or Azrou, to which party and location can provide the greatest likelihood of securing a seat.
When Image Supersedes Substance
These early campaigns seem to lag behind in terms of substantive ideas. Candidates engage in a flurry of social activities—weddings, funerals, local markets, festivals, and more—shaking hands, distributing smiles, and capturing photographs with children and the elderly. Yet, amidst this flurry of activity, a coherent message explaining this hustle is often missing. When constituents inquire about the candidates' programs, they are met with a litany of vague platitudes: "service to citizens," "development," and "progress." When pressed for specifics, terms like governance, community engagement, and investment surface, but these words have been so overused and stripped of context that they have lost their political significance.
It is essential to remember that an electoral campaign is neither a public relations tour nor a contest for the most handshakes. Rather, it is a crucial moment when an individual or party conveys to society: here is my interpretation of your reality, my specific priorities, my detailed solutions, the resources I commit to deploy, and the timelines I intend to adhere to. A campaign should transform ambition into a contract, a contract into measurable commitments, and voters from mere spectators into active participants who have the right to question, compare, and even reject candidates.
Ideally, a candidate should initiate their campaign with an honest diagnostic of the region they seek to represent. Understanding a community goes beyond appreciating its picturesque views; it requires a grasp of its economy, agriculture, unemployment rates, infrastructure, transportation systems, youth situations, and the financial capacities of municipal governments. If a candidate from Berkane launches their campaign in Agadir, residents might justifiably question: what do you truly know about us beyond a preparatory note? What connections did you have with this city before you needed our votes? What tangible proposals do you have for transportation, housing, local economy, tourism, water management, and urban planning? A mere affection for a city is insufficient for effective governance, just as a photo-op in front of a scenic view cannot substitute for a comprehensive urban vision.
Before revealing their program, candidates must first grasp it thoroughly. Many, despite being well-intentioned, rely on documents crafted by advisors, much like a student presenting a summary of a book they have never read. A genuine candidate should be able to articulate their project succinctly—ten minutes to an economist, five to a merchant, a couple of minutes to a student, and a single sentence to a passerby: what will you actually change if we elect you? The ability to distill a complex idea into accessible language demonstrates true mastery of the subject matter, whereas hiding behind vague formulations often reveals a lack of substance and clarity.
The challenge lies not in being proactive; the essence of politics involves continuous engagement with the community throughout the year, rather than emerging only as elections approach. The real issue arises when anticipation morphs into a campaign devoid of substantive projects—an unbridled race for positions devoid of integrity, an intensive presence intended to convey strength without a clear direction. Some candidates may prioritize making their names known before their ideas, but effective politics requires inverting this logic: a clear idea will make a name memorable.
The most effective campaign is not the loudest one but rather the clearest. Starting early does not guarantee success; one can sprint for a year in the wrong direction, while the individual who knows their destination will arrive more swiftly via the right path. The fundamental question remains: what do you genuinely intend to accomplish? "Serving the public interest" is not a platform; it's a political function. "Developing the region" is an objective, not a plan. "Prioritizing youth" is a phrase that has been so frequently repeated that it has aged before many young people even had the chance to experience it.
What is required are tangible figures rather than lofty promises, reasonable timelines, concrete choices, palpable priorities, feasible resources, and precise responsibilities. Only then does a true campaign begin. Prior to reaching that point, there may be cars, photographs, handshakes, raised phones, calculated smiles, daily publications, and digital clamor—yet all of it amounts to mere hot air.
As reported by quid.ma.
