Culture is an elusive term. In essence, it is an outlook toward the concerns of life—a coherent view acquired and shared by members of a group which classifies significance and attitudes and dictates what is appropriate.
Each person carries within them patterns of thinking and feelings which are learned throughout their life, making up some sort of mental software. To better understand the functioning of a society, we distinguish three dimensions: 1) power distance, 2) short-term versus long-term orientation, and 3) individualism versus collectivism.
Power distance is the extent to which the least powerful members of a society tolerate inequalities. There is a tendency in some societies to gravitate toward the status quo by those holding positions of power, wealth and status. This propensity is typical of high power distance cultures, where the powerful and privileged are expected to use their power to accumulate wealth (i.e, Arab nations).
The status of elites is reinforced by symbolic behavior which further solidifies their power. The major power sources are composed of family and friends, along with charisma and/or the ability to use force. In Morocco, for example, wealthy families are best represented in both houses of parliament, regional councils, and ministries. Scandals involving these elite are actually expected. In cases where these scandals are covered up, the blame is assigned to those lower in the hierarchy.
Even though the political landscape in Morocco allows for the coexistence of several political parties, this spectrum is characterized by 1) extreme right and left wings (conservative and liberal-socialist); 2) a weak center; and 3) a political reflection of polarization between dependence and counter-dependence. State income is unequally distributed, characterized by large income gaps.
Eurobarometric surveys reveal, for example, that when the Power Distance Index (PDI) is higher, few people trust the police, fewer young people join a political party, and fewer citizens participate in meaningful discourse with decision-makers.
Furthermore, the power differential between authorities and citizens is treated differently among various countries. In societies where power distances are great, authority tends to be traditional, sometimes even rooted in religion. Power is considered a basic societal element which supersedes the choice between good and evil. Power trumps right. There is even an unspoken consensus that there actually should be a hierarchical power structure. Such order satisfies people’s need for dependence, and it provides a sense of security for both those in power and those in submission.
As globalism has increased, institutions of E.U. countries with low power distance (LPD) have sometimes been mimicked by countries with high power distance (HPD). Political leaders who have studied in other countries may try to imitate the policies of those countries. Also, LPD’s often try to export their institutional ideology to influence policy, particularly with respect to social, economic, and environmental tenets.
However, adopting Western democratic principles (i.e., elections) will ultimately fail to alter the political landscape of a country if tradition is deeply ingrained in the mental software of that populace. Typically, the undernourished and uneducated masses make poor democrats, and the standard approach to ruling in wealthier countries does not work in poorer nations. The actions of foreign governments in enticing more autocratic countries towards democracy and human rights are actually instigated by the mental programming of foreign entities. As such, they are generally more effective in soothing the consciences of foreign perception rather than solving problems inherent to the country being judged.
Another area where the concept of PDI can explain national policy problems is the education sector. Morocco, for example, has recently introduced reforms, usually carbon copies of pedagogy from LPD nations.
Parent-child inequality–perpetuated by inequality between teachers and students–is a mirror of the long-held concept of student dependency on the educator. The educational process is teacher-centric; therefore, teachers dictate the intellectual paths to follow. In the classroom, a strict decorum is followed whereby the educator is the initiator of all communication. Students only speak when invited, while teachers are never publicly questioned and are treated even with extracurricular deference. When a student misbehaves, teachers expect parents to assist with proper intervention. Moreover, what is transferred is not seen as impersonal “truth”, but as the personal wisdom of the teacher in higher level university courses. The teacher is a guru, a term derived from the Sanskrit word for “heavy” or “honorable.” Not coincidentally, this is actually what a teacher is called in India. The French term is “master,” or “professor for thinking,” by contrast. In the latter, the quality of learning depends heavily on how scholarly the teacher is.
To make the situation more difficult, the learning culture in LPD nations is based on questioning and critical thinking; whereas, in HPD locales, learning emphasizes memorization. The problem becomes clearer when we attempt to transfer typically LPD pedagogy to HPD institutions.
The second dimension concerns what Hofstede’s orientational perspective, defined as follows: Long-term orientation signifies fostering virtues oriented toward future rewards such as perseverance and thrift. Its polar opposite–short-term orientation–is synonymous with upholding virtues linked to traditional values concerning generational and familial hierarchies.
Before 1999, Moroccan public policy emphasized projects serving the needs of the existing citizenry, as opposing to addressing changing demographics and targeting future generations. One may liken this to a sports team whose goal is immediate results, versus a mindset accepting of a building–or rebuilding–phase.
Since his ascension to the throne, Morocco’s King Mohammed VI has initiated a policy based on a long-term orientation: the policy of sustainable development (INDH); its agricultural policy (Green Plan); an energy policy (the Noor station in Ouarzazate ); security policy (the fight against terrorism), etc.
On the international level, Morocco’s investments in Africa are another case of policy aimed at achieving viable socioeconomic objectives, and are characterized by a certain pragmatism specific to low-context cultures.
The third cultural dimension involves individualism versus collectivism. Most societies value group (collectivist) over individual interest. (Collectivism’s context here, by the way, involves no allusion to politics). In collectivist societies, the “family” in which the child is raised typically consists of many extended family members. As the children mature, they learn to view themselves as part of a “We” group, a relationship based on the natural order of life.
Individualism, in contrast, emphasizes loose societal ties among individuals, with an expectation to look after themselves and their immediate family somewhat exclusively. Collectivism, in contrast encourages individuals to become integrated into strong, cohesive units which pledge undying loyalty from birth.
Morocco’s Arab and African policy exemplifies this spirit of collectivism. Relationships which the Kingdom has established with Gulf and African countries are the result of this mindset. As such, collaborative efforts are based on the “win-win principle.” Inevitably, culture drives public policy, and in this increasingly globalistic world, indeed it should.
*Prof. Youcef Hdouch is the head of the English department at the Faculty of Languages, Letters and Arts – Ibn Tofail University. He is also Advisor to the President of the University.