Introduction
Morocco witnessed the first modern constitutional experience after independence, in 1962 to be specific. This experience is still the ongoing one today despite interruptions and many reservations that it underwent and that varied with the varying motives and reasons. From the heart of this experience rose a parliamentary one, which though important, was generally characterized by immaturity— whether in its legal structure or performance or influence. This immaturity was due to its notable subordination to the hegemony of the administration, often accused of generating its results and orienting its course and due to the opposition’s weakness, the parliamentary responsibility crisis, parliament members’ failure to use their full constitutional and legal rights in confronting the government (supervisory petition or resort to the constitutional council), in addition to the favoring of private interest over national interest .

These are the reasons that made the work of the parliamentary institution remain lacking the ambition of a people’s will for political, social, and economic reform and modernization of the country. It must also be taken into consideration that the low mass awareness of national rights and duties negatively contributed to consecrating this situation. Thus, the ineffectiveness of previous parliamentary experiences in general made the presence of a Moroccan parliament a site of doubt by a large sector of the elite and ordinary population.

Yet responding to change was not much delayed. In 1996, an important constitutional amendment was made following a plebiscite conducted on 13 September of the same year. As a result, the Moroccan parliament came to consist of two chambers: the parliamentary council and the advisory council in accordance with Article 36 of the new constitution (1996). The parliamentary session for the first council became 5 years instead of 6. As for the second council, its members are elected for a term of 9 years, and third of this council is re-elected every 3 years (Chapter 38).

The last plebiscite was preceded by many discussions and negotiations between parties, syndicates, the government, and numerous royal receptions for most of the powerful forces in the Moroccan political field to negotiate with them in order to reach a common vision for completing the structuring of constitutional institutions and for anchoring the democratic course.

As such, the constitutional amendment was responsive to many of the opposition’s demand0s, made in its historical memorandums to King Hassan the Second on 23 April 1996. These demands center on human rights issues and public liberties, on the relation between the legislative and executive powers, on administrative and judicial reform, and on the integrity of the elections. Based on this constitution, the last parliamentary elections were held in November 1997. In them, the opposition was able, for the first time in Morocco’s political history, to ascend to power. It ascension spread an atmosphere of reassurance in most of the political currents on the mass level.

Hopes rose that this positive democratic transformation would positively be reflected in parliamentary performance since the parliamentary council is a direct reflection of the level of actual democratic and political development, and this is what qualifies it to play an important role in the country’s political, economic, and social life—through its assumption of its legislative and supervisory role .

This section will undertake an analysis of the degree of the Moroccan parliament’s effectiveness, particularly in the legislative field.

Despite the fact that the Moroccan parliament is considered the second constitutional institution after the monarchy, it is expected, as a representational institution, to be an effective means that enables the masses to participate in and contribute to the national structure. Yet contrary to most Western parliaments whose founding and rise was linked to a confrontation of the monarchy and a seizure of power from it, the Moroccan parliament is distinct in its founding within the monarchy’s context and through a monarchy-made constitution and one that is considered a renewal of its fealty.

This confirms the favoring of the monarchy’s legitimacy over that of the parliament. Before the monarchy’s historical, religious, democratic, and constitutional legitimacy, the parliament has only a democratic (electoral) legitimacy. It also lacks a historical inheritance that makes it worthy of power and representation , in addition to the irregularity of its performance in a periodical and stable form as becomes evident from the disparity of the sessions of Morocco’s different parliamentary experiences. This disparity is mainly attributed to the sharp political and ideological polarization between the government and the opposition:
- The first parliamentary experience: (1963-1965).
- The second parliamentary experience: (1970-1971).
- The third parliamentary experience: (1977-1984).
- The fourth parliamentary experience: (1984-1992).
- The fifth parliamentary experience: (1993-1997).
- The current parliamentary experience: (1997- ).

To present a relatively clear picture of the Moroccan parliament’s performance in general and of its legislative activity in particular, it is suggested that the first, third, and fourth parliamentary experiences be discussed for two reasons:
1. The first period acquires a constituent character of actual legislative work in Morocco.
2. Studying the first and third parliamentary experiences enables us to understand the developmental process of the parliament’s performance and to make the transition from the eighties to the nineties.