King Mohammed VI’s decision to discontinue his August 20 speech marks a turning point in the scope and scale of commemorations, and averts the encroachment of memory on politics, while at the same time unburdening the French-Moroccan relations of the “weight of history”.
First proposed in 1959 by the Istiqlal party, the King and People’s Revolution celebration was a part of a piecemeal, a fragmented commemoration of decolonization: January 11 saw the release of the independence manifesto, August 20 coincided with King Mohammed V’s exile, and November 18 was the day when the country gained its independence.
Despite the heavy symbolism of the date and the name given to the celebration, the civic practices relating to this event underwent a noticeable pacification over the past decades. Although the King’s speeches routinely feature a reference to the commemorated event, they draw on its atemporal legacy rather than revive hatred for the former colonial power. We are reminded of values (sacrifice, selflessness, loyalty, unity), taught lessons (the power of collective commitment), and given a vision for the future – today’s struggle is meant solely for the country’s development. Subjected to calendrical requirements, the event-based reference, as invoked in the sovereign’s addresses, primarily serves to establish a statement pertaining to the present and the future.
In modern times, the King and People’s Revolution does no longer serve to bind the nation against a nemesis personified by the former colonizer. This shift started in the 1980s, and its roots can be traced back to the era of Mohammed V, who, upon achieving independence, turned over the colonial page and started addressing the challenges of modern age: “Having emerged from the lesser Jihad (the ordeal of exile and the achievement of independence), we are now ready to wage the greater Jihad (the real battle to secure progress and development)”.
However, the over-politicization of memories, the growing political use of history, and the mushrooming of memory-based policies in neighboring countries, all of which do saturate public calendars, and reignite ancient grudges and long-simmering sorrows on a regular basis, calling for an attitude oriented towards the present moment, away from a past embedded in the present.
The memory dynamics in Algeria provide a good case in point. The public and official endorsement of half-forgotten legacies, spiced up with poignant statements, staged dramatizations and over-the-top commemorative acts, is a typical case of instrumentalization. Both present and future appear frozen in the past.
Historical commemorations know no delimitations, and often lend themselves to contentious, quarrelsome speeches and practices, relying on rituals of remembrance to legitimize and justify state-sponsored enmity. National days are injunctions to feel hatred. Collective feelings have a strict framework; no questioning is permitted, under penalty of being accused of treason or, worst, harkism (Algerian soldiers fighting in the French army). Young people are drilled in ritualistic, methodical loathing of the Other, without understanding the underlying reasons. They must follow in the footsteps of their long-dead ancestors.
Commemorative events lend themselves to many uses as they represent the arenas where historical consciousness and national identity are built, shared beliefs and attitudes are shaped, and communities are forged. King Mohammed VI’s decision to stop delivering speeches during the King and People’s Revolution draws a clear boundary between the past and the present.
This is not a matter of de-commemoration – the celebration of independence is universally agreed upon – as it is a delimitation of the type and scale of commemorative events, by detaching the King’s speeches, which are primarily intended to lay down general policy, from a highly memorialized and symbolic date. In contrast to the Green March, which commemorates an ongoing campaign for the recognition of the Sahara, the King and People’s Revolution recalls the fight against a former colonizer who has become a valued partner. The elimination of August 20 speech is like a separation between public action and commemorations. The kingdom has simply no memorial grudge to nurture; but only a genuine desire to establish transparent, healthy relations, in tune with the challenges of the century. Hopefully, this message will be easy on the ear.