In “Master and Disciple,” Abdellah Hammoudi focuses on his native Morocco to explore the ideological and cultural foundations of the persistent authoritarianism. He builds on the work of Foucault to show that at the heart of Moroccan culture lies a paradigm of authority that juxtaposes absolute authority against absolute submission. In his book, he argues that the schema of authority seen in the master-disciple dialectic is therefore the same as the one which shapes all precedence elations, including the superior-subordinate relationship that forms the backbone of modern bureaucratic and political order in Morocco. Its work is visible at the global level of hagiographic history and generally speaking in cultural history. In his analysis of the master and the disciple, inasmuch as they are figures of ambiguity, he finds that they appear to be in contact with the invisible (this is the meaning of the walaya) and combine within themselves the two principle (feminine and masculine) of reproduction. It is precisely their continuous presence, in the form of uninterrupted emergence of charisma, which maintains Moroccan society. Its influence is so pervasive and so firmly embedded that it ultimately legitimizes the authoritarian structure of power. Hammoudi contends that as long as the Master-Disciple dialectic remains the dominant paradigm of power relations, male authoritarianism will prevail as the dominant political form.

One of the reasons I enjoyed the book is because it helped explain the roots of Moroccan authoritarianism differently than most of the other scholarly work I have read. There are many scholars who came up with theories of why it has been so hard for democracy to take root in the Middle East. Many of these studies claim that factors like poverty, lack of education, inequality, or a lack of established civil society. All of these factors do in fact contribute to making it easier for authoritarianism to thrive. But these factors have been present in many other countries that have been able to become democratic now. The Moroccan youth have always been silenced by the patriarchal and tribal concept of respect of seniority. In presence of the seniors, the youth are taught to keep silent and listen to the elders who have more experience. So, actually the youth never get a chance to express their opinions or become part of a political elite. Indeed, the whole political and social arena is off limits to them, while the elites dominate the scene. In Morocco and the Arab world, the youth are stifled and repressed and any rebellion on their part is considered as a rejection of tradition. By using the relationship between the master and disciple, Hammoudi explains this situation in Morocco using culturally relevant conditions that are relevant within Morocco’s context.

However, I finished the book with still many questions in my mind. Hammoudi mentions that “neither inversion rituals nor the process of mystical initiation are specific to Moroccan society.” He says: “Thus the essential characteristics of Moroccan authoritarianism show it to be, despite significant differences, no more than a variant of the modern Arab authoritarianism.” I couldn’t help but think if that was the case, then why is it that Arab protestors in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya have toppled their governments, while a number of other countries have yet to experience upheavals of such magnitude. Among those countries is Morocco, a country with a long history of political protests against tyrannical rule, both colonial and domestic. Central to the monarchical regime’s strength is its longevity – the Alaoui dynasty gained control of most of Morocco in 1664 – and its claim of descent from the Prophet Muhammad. King Mohammed is aided by a powerful propaganda machine – his image adorns streets and shops across the country. Hammoudi’s book, although it may have explained the conditions that contribute to Moroccan authoritarianism, it does not explain what contributes to the robustness of the Moroccan regime that has prevented it from experiencing upheavals like similar countries such as Egypt. He compares the similarity between Morocco and Egypt when he states: “Moreover, some remarks on two other Arab societies, the Algerian and the Egyptian, will help us realize that the master-disciple relationship may still be very much at work there too. Of all Arab societies countries Algeria and Egypt are perhaps the most radically affected by change since the nineteenth century, yet the paradigms of domination and submission do not differ there from the ones I have described in Moroccan society.” If Morocco is similar to Egypt in terms of the presences of the master-disciple relationship, why has it not been hit by the wave that is sweeping through the region? Egypt has experienced a revolution in 2011 when the Mubarak regime was toppled, and in 2013 when Morsi was removed. Is Morocco an exception to this rule? If so, I had hoped that he would explain the conditions that make it different from other Arab countries affected by the protests.

Another critique I have for the book is that, despite the fact that Hammoudi has tried his best to avoid orientalist approaches to explaining the conditions in Morocco, I still couldn’t help but notice the essentialist and over-simplifying approach he had towards Moroccan authoritarianism. In explaining the robustness of the Moroccan regime only through the relationship of the master and disciple, Hammoudi ignores other social, historical, economic, and cultural factors that complicate the reality of Morocco and has stripped down this phenomenon to one underlying and unchanging ‘essence’ which is Sufism. I would have hoped that he would further explore these other factors that explain the unique robustness of Moroccan authoritarianism as opposed to other Arab regimes.

In conclusion, it was interesting to read about the cultural aspects that affect the way politics are performed because scholars tend to ignore that aspect during their research and publications.  However, this book is most definitely not for the casual reader or for the general public. It uses difficult vocabulary and complicated concepts that would be difficult for the casual reader, and it seems that it is more directed to scholars and professional anthropologists. This particular style of writing makes the work inaccessible and more obscure to the average person. Scholars should take more care to make their work more accessible to the general public. But despite the fact that his book could be improved, I definitely appreciate the fact that he taken a risk in publishing this book. It is risky to write about authoritarianism in non-democratic societies, and it is definitely very dangerous for Arab scholars living in the Arab world to do so.