Michael Van Der Galien argues that full democratization in Morocco is a bad idea because

A large part of the Moroccan people is uneducated and socially extremely conservative (read strict, strict Muslims). They barely know how to take care of their own family. Should people like that be allowed to determine the fate of an entire country?

Strict, strict Muslims? not in my experience, at least not in comparison with many other Muslim countries. Anti-Western? Most Moroccans were pretty welcoming to me. Barely know how to take care of their own family? The tight-knit social and family structure in rural Morocco as I knew it demonstrated an effectiveness in caring for one's family on limited resources that some in America would do well to emulate. Really, such a libel makes it hard to take the rest of the argument seriously. Contrast The Moderate Voice.

I do not mean to paint Morocco through rose-colored glasses. There is a lot of poverty and lack of education and many people are quite religious. Frankly, however, I would trust some of the poor, uneducated, religious Moroccans I knew with the ballot much sooner than some of their so-called betters, particularly those who have bought into the police state. And Van Der Galien's implicit assumption that the right to vote should be limited to an educated elite runs counter to the modern democratic experience, especially in the United States, where the long term trend for two centuries has been to expand the franchise.

My acquaintance with Morocco is mostly cultural and experiential, and I normally know enough to know that I don't know enough to comment intelligently on Moroccan politics. (I find it hard enough to follow American politics.) I do think, however, that if progress toward democracy in Morocco stagnates or retrogresses, as it has with the recent crackdown on the press, that the outcome will ultimately be bad for the country and for the monarchy.

UPDATE: Shadi Hamid in a further exchange of views with Michael Van Der Galien.