In the life of institutions, legislation is rarely the end of the journey. More often, it marks the moment when the real test begins. Laws can define powers, establish procedures and draw institutional boundaries, but they cannot, by themselves, create legitimacy or inspire public confidence. From this perspective, the enactment of Law No. 09.26 reorganizing Morocco’s National Press Council represents far more than a legislative amendment. It signals the beginning of a new institutional phase in which success will no longer be measured by the adoption of the law itself, but by the quality and credibility of its implementation.
Idriss Chtatane approaches this moment as the conclusion of a lengthy constitutional and legal debate. Yet beneath this observation lies a more profound argument: Morocco has moved beyond questioning the constitutional foundations of the Council and entered a stage where the real issue is whether the institution can effectively fulfil the mission for which it was created. Once the Constitutional Court’s observations had been incorporated into the final version of the bill, the central question ceased to be whether the law complied with constitutional principles. Instead, attention shifted to a more demanding challenge: can this new legal framework produce a Council capable of restoring the confidence of journalists, media institutions and the wider public?
This shift also reveals the article’s political dimension. Rather than dwelling on legal technicalities, the author situates the reform within the broader architecture of state governance. His reference to the Minister of Youth, Culture and Communication, Mehdi Bensaid, should therefore not be read merely as personal praise. It serves a broader analytical purpose by illustrating that major institutional reforms depend not only on political will, but equally on the ability to navigate constitutional procedures, build consensus and manage complex institutional relationships. The underlying message is less about the individual than about a governing method capable of transforming political intent into legally sustainable institutional reform.
One of the article’s most significant features is precisely this gradual transition from personalities to institutions. It deliberately moves away from a political culture that tends to personalize every reform. Once enacted, a law no longer belongs to those who drafted or defended it; it becomes the collective property of the institution and of the professional community it is designed to serve. Consequently, its legitimacy can only be assessed through its practical outcomes rather than through the reputations of those associated with its adoption. The debate, therefore, ceases to be political in the narrow sense and becomes fundamentally institutional.
Within this framework, professional self-regulation is presented as an essential component of democratic consolidation. This is not rhetorical language. It reflects a constitutional philosophy according to which press freedom is secured not only by shielding journalists from state interference but also by enabling the profession to regulate itself through transparent ethical standards and professional accountability. In this reading, the National Press Council becomes far more than an administrative body; it emerges as one of the institutional mechanisms that balances freedom of expression with professional responsibility and the public’s right to reliable information.
At the same time, the article contains an implicit assessment of the previous institutional experience. Although no individual or organization is explicitly singled out, the repeated emphasis on learning from past shortcomings suggests that the principal weakness did not lie in the existence of the Council itself, but in the manner in which it functioned and in the level of confidence it succeeded—or failed—to establish. Many of the tensions that marked Morocco’s media landscape during recent years stemmed less from legal disagreements than from the widespread perception that the institution had not always demonstrated equal distance from competing actors within the profession.
For that reason, the next stage is portrayed primarily as a process of rebuilding trust. Such trust cannot be restored through declarations or public relations campaigns. It must be earned through measurable institutional behaviour: respecting the legal timetable for establishing the Council, completing its governing structures, adopting its internal regulations and code of ethics, and ensuring that it exercises its statutory powers with consistency, independence and credibility.
The article reaches its strongest analytical point when it turns to the issue of public funding for the media sector. On the surface, the proposal is straightforward: publish the list of beneficiaries. Yet a closer reading reveals a far broader institutional question. The author reopens a long-standing debate within Morocco’s media environment: has public financial support actually fulfilled its intended purpose of strengthening media companies and improving journalists’ professional conditions, or has part of it gradually evolved into a new form of rent-seeking within the sector?
Significantly, the author refrains from making direct accusations against specific actors. Instead, he places his confidence in transparency itself. Once financial information becomes publicly accessible, debate naturally shifts from speculation to verification and from political accusations to factual evidence. Transparency therefore ceases to be merely an ethical principle; it becomes an instrument of institutional governance, capable not only of clarifying the past but also of preventing the recurrence of structural deficiencies in the future.
Viewed from this perspective, the mission of the National Press Council extends well beyond supervising professional elections or enforcing ethical standards. It also becomes a guardian of the integrity of public resources allocated to media development. The article implicitly argues that genuine editorial independence cannot be separated from transparent and accountable mechanisms governing public support for journalism. A sector that benefits from public funding must itself embody the principles of transparency, accountability and responsible governance.
The author further reinforces this institutional reading by highlighting provisions within the new law requiring the publication of electoral lists well before voting takes place. Although this may appear to be a purely procedural requirement, it carries considerable institutional significance. By allowing professionals to verify and challenge electoral registers before the election, the reform expands professional oversight, strengthens procedural legitimacy and reduces the likelihood of future disputes.
Likewise, the Council’s new institutional architecture—combining direct elections, representative appointments and official nominations—should not be interpreted simply as a distribution of seats. Rather, it represents an attempt to reconcile different sources of legitimacy within the media ecosystem. Journalists embody professional legitimacy; publishers represent the economic foundations of the press industry; while appointed members contribute institutional expertise and constitutional continuity. The objective is not to satisfy every interest equally, but to prevent any single group from monopolizing an institution intended to represent the profession as a whole.
The legal requirement obliging publishers to contribute financially to the Council reflects the same philosophy. Beyond providing financial resources, it establishes a direct relationship between rights and responsibilities. Those who participate in shaping professional governance are also expected to share responsibility for sustaining the institution that guarantees that governance. Financial contribution thus becomes an expression of institutional co-responsibility rather than a mere administrative obligation.
Ultimately, the article advances a message that reaches far beyond the defence of a particular law or a specific political moment. It calls for a transition from a culture of conflict surrounding the National Press Council to a culture of institution-building. Laws may evolve over time as circumstances change, but public trust can only be accumulated gradually through consistent practice. If the new Council succeeds in making transparency a governing principle, independence an institutional reality and professional ethics a shared reference point, it will have achieved more than the successful implementation of Law No. 09.26. It will have restored credibility to the very concept of professional self-regulation as one of the indispensable foundations of a free, responsible and genuinely professional press operating in the service of society rather than of competing interests.
