In this book, I attempted to demonstrate the overriding importance of the use of language in Moroccan political argumentation and how politicians are acutely aware of the key role played by this tool of communication to achieve specific goals. How a political actor can further his aims by way of language use is a question of an unending interest. No doubt, language is a sort of tool kit that provides icons and symbols that enable its users to represent reality to the public, thus passing on information to hearers or listeners, who are in turn supposed to decode what is being delivered, for communication is not unidirectional.

Since political speakers are cognizant of the fact that language, to some degree, reflects reality, they are extremely interested in producing a plausible reality in which they give the audience the impression that -contrary to their opponents’ doomed and failed strategies- their policy will undoubtedly lead the nation to progress. This is exactly what Mr. Benkirane does, as shown throughout our analysis of some of his speeches, every now and then whenever an opportunity presents itself, he resorts to the excessive use of details and promises to make what he is saying appear appealing and true. It might appear on closer inspection that it is precisely the shrewd use of language that creates the illusion of reality.

To analyze Some of Mr. Benkirane’s speeches, I have mainly drawn on some tremendously important references written by some outstanding authorities in political discourse analysis such as Grice, H.P, Jacob L. Mey, Steven C. Levinson, Paul Chilton, Wooffitt, Robin, Linda Thomas & Shan Wareing, Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton, and Teun A. van Dijk.

From our analysis of some of Mr. Benkirane’s speeches, it turns out that there are some recurrent rhetorical devices that virtually permeate Benkirane’s argumentation and which can be summed up as follows:

1.Conferring legitimacy upon oneself while stripping others of it, and this comes out in different respects:

a. Assigning authority to action and reaction and anticipating the opposition through the act of getting inspired from a legacy of traditions, customs and laws.

b. Quoting influential people, national and religious symbols.

c. Creating impressions through determining cultural, intellectual and political factors.

d. Relating the ideological affiliation that is deeply entrenched in the nation to similar notions enjoying worldwide acceptance and success.

Therefore, we find the man repeating more often than not the word “King” or “His Majesty” as well as reiterating verses and hadiths. At times, he engages in providing some historical events that endorse his stances. In some discourses, he explicitly or implicitly establishes links between his ideas and those of the Party of Justice and Development in Turkey and the Global Muslim Brotherhood.

Sometimes, the man mentions the names of very powerful countries and quotes influential personalities to buttress his standpoint, albeit the irrelevance of the connection.

On certain occasions, the man takes delight in passing on moral value judgments and establishing dichotomies between two divergent poles: good vs. evil / good vs. bad / halal vs.haram, and all this is to be found in references to the previous governments and their involvement in corruption and in allusions to specific parties, personalities and the benefits they reaped from the Moroccan state and from various forms of corruption.

e Rationalization in the presentation of floating statistics that bear no relation to reality and attempts to rely on it in the construction of a logical sequence.

f. Storytelling and cracking jokes to impart emotional closeness between him and the listener, and to make the latter feel that he and the speaker belong to the same social environment, away from the huge chasm that used to exist between the recipient and the world of politicians.

g. Self-praise that consists in portraying himself as an epic hero whose story ends in triumph and eternal happiness; while that of his opponents is doomed to failure and misery.

2. Two marked and salient signals can be discerned in Benkirane’s speeches: the elements of time and space that rest on establishing a relationship between the speaker and the hearer. In the same spatial frame of reference, Benkirane’s stature is highlighted, for he is regarded as a savior, a kind of reality changer aspiring to extricate people from the jaws of the underworld.

a. Foregrounding the man’s connection to that salvation that is only possible with him and not with others, for the latter were the ones who did draw the outline map of this deteriorating reality.

b. All this is to be construed in a general context the gist of which is that the man, unlike his predecessors, who are from a rich milieu, comes from mainstream Morocco. And unlike his predecessors who are held accountable for the woes of this country, he is unmistakably the bearer of change.

3. We sense an acute presence of elements of interaction and disconnection through creating, on the one hand, correlations between him and the symbols of goodness, positive change and ascribing to his foes, on the other hand, derogatory attributes (when referring to them as crocodiles and goblins. In the man’s discourse, those “crocodiles” and “goblins” are closely intertwined with forces of evil, corruption and reversion to the times of injustice during which the rights of citizens were unfairly violated.

In this interaction and disconnection, the man attempts to put forward as an alternative effective ways of negotiation and questioning reality, while launching an acerbic onslaught on what transpired during the reign of his opponents; in the same vein, Benkirane advocates communication and keeping the citizen abreast of government activity, thus coloring his reign with signs of imminent prosperity and progress.

4. The element of anticipation and enthusiasm seems to permeate Benkirane’s responses to the citizens’ aspirations; the man’s answers to the citizens’ questions are tantamount to rosy promises and realizable goals and all that is required, according to the man, is time and patience.

5. The conspicuous use of the first person pronoun (I) , (my) and (my government) in Benkirane’s argument.

6. The prevalence of duality in the man’s speeches: good and evil, patriotism and treason, freedom and oppression meant to provide the hearer with a choice between good as represented by Benkirane and evil as epitomized by his foes, thus leaving the hearer no other alternative but to plump for the speaker’s stance.

7. The concept of roles remains central in Benkirane’s speeches, for he lays a specific emphasis on the different functions, be them political, social, religious and military, fulfilled by the various participants in his discourse, thus sanctifying the role of the ruler and the subjects, the prince and the believers, the president and the people, the government and the opposition, militants and corrupters.

8. The use of metaphors by drawing on some equivocal terms such as: crocodiles, goblins, corrupters, opportunists who did take advantage from the state and rendered no service to the country.

9. The man’s position on the ethnic and religious differences in the kingdom has constituted a big handicap to the man, for he dealt with the issue of Amazigh and the issue of religious minorities using a discourse that entails different interpretations, which constituted the guy’s occasional lapses in this regard.

10. It is worthy of note that Benkirane’s speech is more often than not tinged with some human emotions that are inextricably linked to action and political reaction; whenever the guy delivers a speech, he is kind of being carried off his feet by strong emotions, inflaming the spirit of patriotism in himself and removing that same spirit from his opponents and rivals. This also holds true, especially, when the man strums on the sensitive cords of his ardent zeal for religion, his adherence to preserving the sanctities and holy things with a view to furthering his aims.

11. Drawing a clear-cut distinction between on the one hand the ego as an essential component and linchpin of all oppressed people and the other as a competitor or enemy, with a specific emphasis on the fact that the ego, whose roots are deeply entrenched in the grass roots, stands for all that is good and upright. Hence, we can talk about a “collective/inclusive ego”

12. Whenever the man addresses specific issues, he tends to make use of floating or equivocal speech, and whenever he is assailed with his opponents’ questions, he resorts to calling his questioners’ political past into question, thus gagging them and referring them back to the “damned period” during which they served selfishly without caring a hang about the interests of mainstream Morocco. Indeed, the man is really good at flinging back any stone he happens to be pelted with.

13. Any stickler for accuracy will notice that the diction used by the man is exactly the same terms as the ones that were once used during the era of Moroccan former prime minister, Abderrahmane El Youssoufi, such as “political alternation”, “democratic transition”, “elections”, “pockets of resistance”, “Moralizing public life”, “major development projects”, “sustainable development”, “ rural development”, “good governance”, “shadow government”, “witch hunt”, “departure from the democratic course”, to mention only a few.

14. The snag with the frame of reference used in Benkirane’s political discourse is his adoption of a religious ideology (Islamic democracy) that he himself destroys through practices and deportments that run at variance with freedom and religion, which creates confusion in his argumentation. In fact, the man uses some big moral slogans that he himself doesn’t dare to implement in as much as -up to now- he has not been able to efficiently face the lobby of corruption that he keeps on mentioning in his speeches.

From the foregoing, we can conclude that there has never been anything like this prominent discourse phenomenon in the Moroccan political scene as the one epitomized by Mr. Benkirane . The man’s political speech combines emotion and cognition, provocation and demagogy, which makes it at times very difficult to grasp. This unintelligibility can be ascribed to its equivocalness and not to its depth, which further accounts for the man’s overexcitement and confusion.

All in all, albeit the absence of rationality, logic and constructive criticism in political discourse at the time, that kind of rhetoric was really appropriate given the nature of that period of time that was characterized by a war of words between the government and the opposition, thus making the political debate become a caricature of what genuine political discourse should be.

At no time in Moroccan history has the Moroccan political dictionary reached such a very low degree of deterioration and disgrace; in fact, the parliamentary sessions have turned into an arena rife with jarring abuse, slander, defamation and the use of obscene vocabulary, thus reflecting the political socialization of politicians in our country. The last act of this ludicrous political comedy was the last parliamentary sessions that the Prime Minister attended. Actually, everyone was looking forward to seeing the government highlighting the achievements hitherto attained only to be disappointed by a government that seemed to be heedless of the citizens’ burning issues, namely the cost of living that was going up.

As the Moroccan saying goes the vacuous always tends to dissemble their stupidity by resorting to belligerence, and this is to some extent true for both the majority government and the opposition, for they are both of them good at slinging mud at one another. To combat his foes, the prime minister makes use of some stigmas such as “fools”, “bandits” and “thugs”. As a response, his opponents smirched him using other damaging attributes such as: “hangdog”, “impostor”, “pro-Daesh”, to mention only a few.