In politics, as in life, the significance of a decision lies not only in its content but also in the moment it is made. That is why the Moroccan government’s announcement that the country will return to Greenwich Mean Time has evolved into something far greater than a simple adjustment of the clocks. It has become a broader reflection on the relationship between the state, society, and political timing.
Within this debate, the remarks made by Mohamed Ouzzine have drawn particular attention. While welcoming the return to Greenwich, he described it as a decision that remains commendable despite its lateness, echoing the familiar expression that “it is better late than never.” Yet beneath that statement lies a more uncomfortable question: why did it take so many years for the government to reach a conclusion that millions of Moroccans had already embraced long ago?
Since the near-permanent adoption of daylight saving time in 2018, controversy has never truly disappeared. Schoolchildren leaving their homes in winter darkness, agricultural and factory workers beginning their day before sunrise, families struggling with biological and psychological adjustments—these realities have shaped a continuous national conversation. This was never a marginal concern or a passing controversy. It became a deeply rooted social issue touching everyday life across the country.
When Ouzzine speaks of a decision arriving during “injury time,” he is referring to more than a calendar date. He is highlighting a political moment. The government that now speaks of evaluating the effects of the current time system is the same government that spent years managing public affairs without fundamentally revisiting the policy. As a result, a contradiction emerges. If recent assessments have revealed the limitations of the expected benefits, why was this conclusion not reached much earlier?
The significance of the debate extends far beyond the issue of timekeeping itself. It touches on the way public policies are designed, assessed, and corrected. Mature political systems are not defined by an absence of mistakes, but by their willingness to acknowledge and rectify them when evidence demands it. Yet when such recognition comes only after years of public dissatisfaction, questions inevitably arise regarding the effectiveness of institutional listening and responsiveness.
Economically, the additional hour was justified through arguments related to energy efficiency and alignment with international economic partners. However, experience has shown that public policies cannot be measured solely through technical or financial indicators. Quality of life, psychological well-being, family stability, and citizens’ natural rhythms are equally important factors when evaluating the success of a public decision.
For that reason, the return to Greenwich appears less like the conclusion of a debate and more like the beginning of a larger discussion about the philosophy of public decision-making in Morocco. Do governments respond when social needs emerge, or only when the political cost of ignoring them becomes greater than the cost of acting?
Many Moroccans will undoubtedly welcome the disappearance of dark winter mornings and the return to a timetable that feels more natural to everyday life. The slogans and campaigns that once demanded change may gradually fade into memory. Yet one question is likely to remain. If the government now implicitly acknowledges the limits of this experiment, how many other public policies may still be awaiting the same moment of recognition?
Ultimately, the most important lesson of this story is not about the hands of a clock. It is about the ability of institutions to listen to society before time itself proves that citizens had understood the problem long before those in power were willing to admit it.
