By Zakariae El Idrissi
By Zakariae El Idrissi
Morocco World News
Fez, April 21, 2013
First, it seems from the very outset that the responder has failed to grasp the theoretical objective framework of my article. Obviously, my article has not adopted a historical approach as the writer claims, but rather a textual analysis, an analysis that he has either ignored or failed to understand. For this reason, I need to explain what a textual analysis is. Briefly, a textual analysis is an attempt of a critic to read a text according to its own words. Undeniably, my article does not distort historical events, simply because history is beyond its limits.
Second, the aim of my article was to uncover the seeming ideological and political lies, contradictions and inconsistencies in the discourses of the PJD leaders. To this end, I tried to follow Sara Mills’ textual method of bringing political ideological lies and contradictions to the forefront.
Sara Mills explained her method:
“It is possible to trace the instability of individual statements when read against other sections of the text. Each discursive position is undermined or called into question by other elements within the text, and while some elements within the text which temper a straightforward position being offered.”
Then, Mills offers us a textual method to uncover the contradictions and the lies of a certain political discourse. On this ground, my article “Truths and Misconceptions about the PJD” endeavors to read some PJD members’ declarations against each other so as to reveal to the reader the apparent lies of the PJD.
Third, my article does not endeavor to convince the reader that the PJD leaders were not members of the Islamic youth movement as the responder accuses. Rather, it tends to reveal the contradiction between Benkirane’s declaration, Ramid’ s , and those of other PJD leaders. In an interview between Idriss lshghar and Mustapha Ramid which was entitled “Idriss lshghar and Ramid: Face to Face”, managed and published by Le Journal, translated from French into Arabic by Itihad Shtiraqi, and republished by Hespress on July 30,2009, Rmid literally admits, “ Benkirane was not even a member of the Shabiba , neither Daoudi , nor Othmani.” Ironically, the same leaders have claimed many times their historical affiliation to the Shabiba. Is this not a contradiction? Certainly the responder has lazily made no effort to look for the interview; therefore, he names it “unidentifiable.”
Fourth, my article did not doubt or question Rmid’s meeting with Mouti’ as the responder claims, but it questions Rmid’s declarations about the circumstances of his meeting with Mouti’. In Tajdid, on 14 February 2008, Ramid declares that he met Mouti’ when he was sixteen. A simple meeting might happen between a well educated mature forty year-old and a sixteen years old adolescent. Suppose that Ramid- the child was genius enough to spark discussions on Islamic issues, could a forty years educational representative of Moroccan inspectors tell an adolescent about his desire to dethrone the regime. Is it believable that a forty year-old mature adult who is intelligent, well educated and well organized (with the witness of Ramid himself) such as Mouti’ would transmit verbally his attempt to overthrow a regime to an adolescent?
Could a man who is described by Rmid as cunning and skilful expose his life to danger by telling adolescents about his rebellious plans? In his declaration in Tajdid , Rmid claims, “once we were in Ibn Jadiya, Mouti’ refers to the need to take up arms for the revolution on the political system. Then, he [Mouti’] asked us, ‘where do you want to take up arms?,’ and we responded, ‘in the mountains’.” Is it logical that a forty year-old skillful rebel – as Rmid explains- asks adolescents where to train in the use of arms? It seems that Ramid’s declaration is full of ambiguities. Any objective reader who examines Ramid’s declaration, could discern easily the gaps in his narrative.
It seems that my responder does rely on incompatible sources. He mentions Othmani who established Aljama, but in the source that he provides, it is mentioned that it was Benkirane who “founded Aljama in 1981.”
Unfortunately, the responder does not distinguish between inconsistency and criticism. Inconsistency refers to the silences, the gaps and the contradictions which may make a certain discourse incomplete and, as a result, unconvincing. For my article, it is not surprising that the PJD attacks the Shabiba; it’s quite normal in a world of political conflicts. What is ironically surprising is the fact that the leaders of PJD declarations are inconsistent: they often contradict themselves and their statements are usually full of gaps. These gaps and contradictions are present in any malignant pragmatic political discourse as Machery, the textual critic, explains.
It’s also of a paramount importance to mention, although in passing, that the first undeniable hindrance that the PJD puts in front of Mouti’s return is the PJD long-lasting media scathing complaint against Mouti’ and his followers. More evidently, Today, Rmid is the minister of justice. But, did he make any special effort to allow Mouti’ to come back?
Finally, I hope that some partisan authors stop forcing their ideological political agendas on independent voices. Although their successive desperate attempts to cover the truth, the truth will prevail.
Many thanks to Morocco World News which has made its editorial line an outlet of truth.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Morocco World News’ editorial policy
© Morocco World News. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, rewritten or redistributed