George Galloway’s recent remarks about Morocco and His Majesty King Mohammed VI deserve scrutiny—not because Morocco should be immune from criticism, but because serious political commentary should be based on evidence rather than personal attacks and sensational allegations.
Morocco, like every country, faces real challenges. Employment, education, healthcare, regional inequality and purchasing power are legitimate subjects for criticism. Yet instead of concentrating on these issues and proposing a substantive political analysis, Galloway appears increasingly focused on King Mohammed VI personally—the Head of State and a central constitutional and symbolic figure of Morocco.
Criticizing public policy is legitimate. Personally denigrating a Head of State through unsupported allegations is something entirely different.
Galloway has made claims concerning the King’s supposed residence in Paris and alleged presence in nightclubs. But the obvious question is: what is the evidence? Serious accusations require serious proof. Political commentary cannot substitute insinuation for documentation.
Claims portraying the King as essentially absent from Morocco should also be considered alongside publicly documented facts. During the 2026 Throne Day celebrations, King Mohammed VI addressed the Moroccan people and subsequently presided over official ceremonies in northern Morocco, including the Throne Day reception in M’diq and ceremonies at the Royal Palace in Tetouan.
More broadly, reducing Mohammed VI’s reign to personal allegations ignores the considerable transformation Morocco has experienced since 1999. Major infrastructure, ports, high-speed rail, renewable energy, industrial investment and institutional reforms have changed the country substantially. This does not mean Morocco has solved all its problems—and the King himself has repeatedly acknowledged persistent social and regional inequalities—but serious analysis should recognize both achievements and shortcomings.
There is also something strikingly familiar about Galloway’s rhetoric.
For Moroccans who have followed the political and media confrontation between Morocco and neighboring Algeria, several themes resemble narratives that have circulated for years in hostile Algerian political and media discourse concerning the Moroccan monarchy.
This does not prove that Galloway is acting on behalf of Algeria, and such a claim should not be made without evidence. However, it is entirely legitimate to observe when a commentator appears to be reproducing a familiar rhetorical script: personalize every Moroccan problem around the King, attack the monarch personally, repeat sensational claims about his private life, and overlook the complexity of Morocco’s political and socioeconomic development.
The resemblance is difficult to ignore.
There is also a question of tone. Galloway has decades of experience in politics and international affairs. One would therefore expect political and diplomatic argumentation based on evidence, policy and verifiable facts. When commentary instead relies on personal accusations and language seemingly intended to generate hostility toward an individual, it risks crossing the line from legitimate criticism into inflammatory rhetoric.
And that raises another question: why focus so heavily on Morocco’s King rather than Morocco’s actual policy challenges? The United Kingdom itself faces serious economic, social and political difficulties. Galloway is perfectly entitled to discuss Morocco, but discussing Morocco should mean examining policies and institutions—not turning its Head of State into the target of a personal campaign.
Moroccans do not need to pretend their country is perfect in order to reject unfair portrayals of it. We can demand better healthcare, education, employment opportunities and governance while simultaneously defending our country and its institutions against unsupported allegations.
Criticism is legitimate. Disagreement is legitimate. Even criticism of the monarchy is legitimate.
But allegations require evidence.
If George Galloway believes Morocco has failed in particular areas, he should identify those failures and support his argument with facts. If he makes claims about where the King supposedly lives or what he supposedly does in his private life, he should provide credible sources.
For someone regarded as an experienced political commentator, that should be the minimum standard.
Morocco can be criticized. But it should be criticized through facts—not caricatures, insinuations or recycled political scripts.
