Is caidalism a by-product of colonialism? As some authors state. Not really, because if the rise of the ‘grand caids’ in the region of Marrakech was made possible by the colonial threat, and was facilitated later on by France once it had established its rule over Morocco [1] “caidalism” was not created by the colonial ruler from scratch

In fact, the makhzen had always imposed the Zakat (tax imposed on Muslims by the Koran) on the tribes. It had also obliged them to provide men (along with arms and horses and their subsistence) to subdue rebellious tribes (those which refused to pay taxes and to supply contingents) to overthrow a pretender or a disobedient marabout…. To do so, the makhzen would address the amghars (traditional leader chosen by their tribe-fellows, as intermediates).

The foreign threat in the second half of the XIX century resulted in more pressure applied on the tribes [2] (more taxes to buy arms and to reimburse the national debt, more combatants to provide the makhzen with…) to face this menace. The makhzen , thus, needed a more efficient intermediate in order to increase taxes and to enroll more armed men. It needed men of its own rather than intermediaries that are more loyal to their tribes than to its cause. Thus the amghars became caids, they became more makhzen agents than go-between (the makhzen and the tribesmen) with more common interests with their fellows tribesmen than with the makhzen’s. From now on, the ‘caidality’ took the tyrannical form that had been associated with this institution until Independence.

In other words, the caids were (already as early as the XVII century and probably even earlier) amghars elected by the tribes they belonged to. Their role was that of intermediaries between the tribes and the makhzen that acknowledged them as so by dahirs. They collected the taxes (on behalf of the makhzen to whom they handed over a share), and they maintained troops to carry out raids on their neighbors, when they were not engaged in harkas for the makhzen to subdue disobedient tribes

After the middle of the XIX century, the position of caid as a makhzen representative prevailed over that of amghar, which did not disappear, after the nomination of caids at the head of tribes they did not belong [3] to. They were allowed to keep a part of the taxes that they collected and the makhzen tolerated the use of their new power to subdue other groups and to become richer.

Instead of reinforcing the makhzen and of saving it from the colonial threat, this policy hastened its downfall in the following downward spiral: more pressure on tribes => more uprising => more prosecution and even more systematic destruction to reduce revolts (“an empty bag cannot stand alone” as says a popular proverb) => impoverishment of the country and the makhzen => more debts…

One has, then, to admit that ‘caidality’ goes back as far as the XVII century (or even earlier), and that it had been reinforced dramatically in two occasions: the first under the reign of Moulay Abderrahmane due to the colonial threat, and the second, which is more important, under the French rule.

[1] See ‘ the grand caids policy’.

[2] Beside the zakat, the tribes had to pay the following taxes:

Farida: a tax to reimburse foreign loans.
Mouna: a cash tax to feed the makhzen troops while in a campaign.
Hedeya: a present to the caid in the occasion of feasts (who hands over part of it to the sultan)
· Kulfa or touiza: unpaid labor on the lands of the caid and the makhzen.

[3] P.Pascon stated that no one of the great caids (Glaoui, Mtouggi, Goundafi) originates in the tribe that he represented.