Reading into the mechanisms for reintegrating former detainees: reconciliation and the problem of support

 Written by abdelkebir belafsahi and transtating by us

In recent years, the Moroccan state launched the “Reconciliation” initiative, the result of cooperation between the General Delegation for Prison Administration and the Mohammedia League of Scholars. It aims to reintegrate detainees on so-called “terrorism” charges.

This initiative is promoted as an embodiment of a reform approach based on religious guidance and psychological support, as part of the state’s vision to dismantle extremism from within and provide individuals with a new opportunity to integrate into society. However, what appears to be a noble initiative on the surface conceals structural and ethical issues that require a rethinking of the philosophy of reconciliation itself and the way integration issues are managed.

In principle, reconciliation entails a promise to rebuild bridges between the individual and the state through a self-reflection process that leads to freedom from extremist ideas. However, in practice, this process has become an indispensable “certificate of good conduct” for access to support programs after release from prison. Detainees who do not pass through reconciliation—whether for personal reasons or because they completed their sentence before the program began—are excluded from most follow-up opportunities and are sometimes arbitrarily classified as general criminal detainees, as if the state were denying the specificity of their case, which until recently was under the microscope of security and the judiciary.

The distinction between those who “repent” according to the institution’s conditions and those who do not creates a state of injustice within the penal system itself. Reconciliation, as it has been adopted, is neither comprehensive nor just. It is more of a privilege than a right, and the support associated with it—despite its limitations—has become forbidden to those who do not subscribe to its narrative.

What’s more alarming is that the support itself falls short of the challenges faced by former detainees, especially in light of a society that continues to stigmatize them, a job market that is wary of them, and the absence of effective integration programs that take into account psychological, economic, and social needs. What is noticeable is the continued dominance of the security approach over integration, despite the social and legal nature of this type of case.

Instead of establishing a support mechanism based on scientific assessment, professional guidance, and psychological support, preconceived notions are being circulated, leaving former detainees to face society alone, armed with a certificate of participation in “reconciliation,” but without the real tools for life outside prison. This situation produces double frustration: frustration from the feeling of exclusion, and then from the belated discovery that reconciliation was merely a symbolic gateway, lacking sufficient real content.

It is a glaring paradox that “public remorse” and “official repentance” have become a condition for enjoying basic citizenship rights after serving a sentence. This condition is inconsistent with the logic of justice and the philosophy of reform, and because freedom of consciousness and conscience should not be the price of integration.

Any former detainee has the right to a new chance based on their societal behavior, not their ideological positions or beliefs. If the state is truly committed to addressing this issue in depth, current policies need a radical review.

Practical alternatives can be proposed, as is the case with alternatives to punishment, because despite its implementation, punishment remains effective and closely linked to its perpetrator. These include the following:

1. Separating social programs from ideological or religious conditions, such that integration is treated as a right for every former detainee, not as an ambush for those who join the reconciliation process.

2. Establishing an independent, multidisciplinary body to oversee the integration process, including sociologists, civil society representatives, and professionals in psychiatry and economic integration.

3. Develop individual and flexible integration pathways that take into account the multiple contexts that gave rise to this phenomenon and address each case individually.

4. Launch national campaigns to combat social stigma and promote success stories instead of regurgitating images of fear and suspicion.

5. Involve former detainees in formulating programs aimed at their reintegration, based on the belief that the true agent of any social transformation is the individual.

Therefore, if reconciliation is not revisited, it will remain a symbol of selective justice, while true integration can only be achieved when policies are separated from security concerns and formulated in light of rights, not fears. This is because, after imprisonment, a person is not a security issue, but rather a new opportunity to build a more tolerant and inclusive society, where true justice requires not recognition but guarantees.