Before delving into the meat of Abdellah Hammoudi’s Master and Disciple, it is imperative that we first examine the characteristics the book and its author have. Hammoudi’s Master and Disciple is an examination into the development of the authoritarian political system and the cultural sircumstance surrounding and causing it. As such the story is written from a third person narrator perspective, likely in a conscious effort to embolden the legitimacy of the books ethos, or credibility, while taking away from -the book’s pathos, or emotional impact, which would in this case would be counter-productive to the author’s objective: to provide an objective historical analysis of a time during most of which he was not alive. This can be expected from such a scholar as Hammoudi, whose purpose is not to convince but rather to inform.

                As this is a dense account of a very complex and intricate aspect of Moroccan political history, it was imperative that Hammoudi take great lengths to make sure all aspects of Morocco’s political system, often foreign to western readers, were clearly explained. As a result, that is exactly what Hammoudi did. Throughout the book, all concepts were introduced with not only a definition, but also a less literal but more comphrehensive translation of many Arabic terms that have no equivalent in English, or French in which the book was originally written. One example of such an explanation can be found on page 61, in which he describes the social classes that exist, one of which was the the descendants of saints (mrabtin). Such a social construct is more complex than apparent at first glance, and so Hammoudi eplains, ” The last category was complex; in practice its members could be classified either on top of the ladder, right below the chorfa, or lower than the masses of ordinary men and women, depending on the the authority of the charisma they inherited .” Hammoudi then goes on to articulate how dependent this status was on others. Such an ambiguous form of social status is difficult to understand for an outsider, so it was imperative that Hammoudi take the time to articulate the nuances of such a social construct. This was something Hammoudi did without fail throughout the book, almost to a fault. 

                When it came to articulating his argument, Hammoudi performed without fail. There was not a single assertion that was simply stated; in fact, the amount of detail provided to support a particular statement was often overdone, and might have even distracted from the more significant meaning.  Furthermore, there is a huge topic which Hammoudi leaves unaddressed. While Hammoudi does address in great detail the cultural factors that are to blame for the sustenance of an authoritarian government despite its interruption by French colonization, he fails to explain why Western nations were able to move away from authoritarian governments claiming divine right towards more democratic forms of government while Morocco was not. What was the fundamental difference between the two cultures that permitted France and the rest of Europe to change their form of rule, and might be hindering the nations of the Arab world. It’s all well and good that Hammoudi points to the nature of Moroccan culture and supports its identity as a perpetuating agent of authoritarian rule, but such a claim requires an alternative, an alternative that Hammoudi fails to provide. While it would be nice to support this take with a passage from the text, it is difficult to support the absence of a passage from the text with a passage from the text. Now, despite these drawbacks, it would not be possible to assert that what Hammoudi did in this text is not significant; while it is only a piece of the puzzle, it is now a piece that can be understand with far greater confidence than could previously.

                While it is difficult to challenge the credibility of the author’s information as a result of there being such a vast amount of it, it is much more feasible to support the credibility of the author due to the extensive use and citing of outside sources in his writing, as well as the fact that Professor Hammoudi is a highly regarded scholar of the mechanisms of Moroccan politics. It’s very selection by our professor further lends to its credibility, as does its relevance in discussions I have had with other Moroccan scholars of equally high regard.

                The book tells the story of how Morocco’s authoritarian style of government came to exist and has been sustained throughout a very dynamic and tumultuous history whose most significant “wrench in the gears” was a long period of French colonization and regime change. However, the story is told both from the perspective of the higher workings of the political and upper class of Morocco, as well as how those workings were manifestations of much more fundamental cultural characteristics that lended to Morocco’s current political atmosphere. One such fundamental characteristic is articulated in the book’s title, and that characteristic is the relationship between “Master and Disciple” in the form of Islam that has now been adopted by Morocco, Sufism. Despite being a religion in which the faults of humanity are to be found and conquered within the self, Sufism also asserts that such a journey of self-purification requires the wisdom and guidance of a shaykh, or spiritual guide. This ­shaykh is an extremely enlightened and wise individual, and as such commands complete respect and obedience from he who seeks guidance. This relationship, one that is fundamental to Islam in Morocco, is one that permeates Moroccan society, and is also one that encourages the subjugation of individuals to those deemed more educated, and more enlightened. To go against such a relationship is to go against Islam, and so having a king who is the commander of the faithful leads to a system of government with cannot be questioned without questioning Islam—the very backbone of Morocco’s value system and culture—in the process. This is one the more significant emergent properties—known in the realm of biology as a property of a system that arises from a unifying characteristic that exists in the system’s many components—of Morocco’s political system that Hammoudi comments on, but is only one of many. Another more tangible and auxiliary emergent property of Morocco’s government is the relationship between the king and the nobility, one whose dynamic is connected to the Moroccan custom of gift-giving and is also not totally dissimilar to that of France during the reign of Louis XIV. Strange that these two countries had/have such similar government dynamics and the one that overcame their government came to colonize and overcome the other. Now while this is only one of the many connections Hammoudi draws, most follow this theme of emergent properties. As a result, it is my belief that Hammoudi successfully accomplishes the goal he set out with, which was to illustrate how entrenched the dynamics of Morocco’s political system are in its culture, and that is why it was able to be sustained despite the significant interruption made by French colonization.

               Despite the few drawbacks to Hammoudi’s intensely focused style of writing, he fully  accomplishes what he set out to, which was to show how embedded the roots of Moroccan authoritarianism are in the fundamental relationships that permeate Moroccan culture. And if it was not possible for decades of French colonialization to disrupt the tendency of Moroccan government to default to authoritarianism, what could?