Some prominent Moroccan parties abstained from keeping up with the early protests staged by the February 20 youth movement. This indicates that these parties preferred an institutional dialogue rather than the Street's anger, as they were monitoring the developments and did not want to anticipate the events. The dialogue was concluded with predictable classifications that led to a swap of positions between the once-opposition and pro-government representatives. Then, the Socialist Union, which directly or indirectly sponsored the early shows of power between the opposition and the government, and which is represented by the unionist ‘Dignity March', found no embarrassment in allowing the February 20 members to take part in the confrontation. However, they were brandishing some more radical slogans at those who failed to see them or to sense their presence. The slogans were directed not only against the government but also against the regime. Whether this was a polarization or a mere temporary partnership necessitated by the new alliances, the participation of the February 20 activists in the Dignity March had some major indications that are not merely limited to obtaining support for the opposition forces. Such indications mainly imply that it is no longer possible to abolish this group that grew in the realm of the Arab Spring. In addition, coexisting with this group will not turn it into a mere participant at the parties' race. Ironically, the anger of the Street had paved the way for the Islamic Justice and Development party to monopolize the political power and to seize the post of prime minister; and this same anger is now being used to overthrow or at least to embarrass the cabinet of Abdelilah Benkirane by reminding of the promises that this cabinet had made and that revolve of the war against corruption and tyranny. The best way to gain time is to stir the social demands through the gate of the unions since these have always been in the front lines. Thus, there is now a firm belief that the unions are the entities that are mostly capable of stirring people's feelings. This took place during the pressure years between 1981 and 1990 when the culture of protests had not been replaced yet with the virtue of dialogue under the social context. The most powerful unions took calmer and less embarrassing stands vis-à-vis the successive cabinets since the experience of the consensual power relay. However, some unions – in addition to some February 20 angry youth and some unemployed university graduates' groups - are currently bringing matters back to square one in a noteworthy development. Looking back at the history of the youth movements, Morocco was never too far from such polarizations. In the 1970s, some activists and students deviated away from the umbrella of the partisan work. They drifted behind their rosy dreams and thought that theirs was a battle against the regime and also against the political parties. They were looking at everybody else as if they were adversaries. Thus, unsurprisingly, everybody else allied in order to terminate the growing protest movement, which followed the Marx-Lenin train of thought. Back then, the Islamic movements were just being formed. Between the spiritual feelings and the ideological loyalty, the universities were flooded with different types of battles and confrontations. However, the current and past phases do not have sufficient common traits that allow for repeating the same events. Dealing with the prospective protest movement – which currently includes leftist, Islamic and liberal directions – is now different. Indeed, the historic context that led to the birth of the anger movements in the 1970s has been heavily modified. Meanwhile, the present regional and Arab atmospheres have pushed the February 20 movement forward but in a different manner. Society's vision of its own self, the others, and the current challenges has changed. Similarly, the Moroccan parties are no longer the same and, out of their former bets, their only remaining bet now is their acknowledgment of the importance of change; that there can be no change without stability; and that stability is secured through the democratic choice and the peaceful relay of power. The issue is no longer about containment or polarization as it now goes beyond that by comprehending the rules of this dynamism that placed all the political partners in direct contact with the Street. Indeed, the protest movements come and go and some lead to victories while others lead to failures and losses. However, the rounds of idea and initiative exchanges keep on coming back and on creating a positive effect. This is a state of vigilance produced by the current changes. It seems that the differences in the positions between the opposition and pro-government forces have not revoked this feeling, although each party wants to play safe: The prime minister is saying that the Arab spring has not ended yet; and his opponents are saying that the country might be affected by the aftershocks; while others are throwing speeches in several directions. We still have to say that the increase in the severity of problems is proportionate to the increase in the population count. One of the most unflattering points is that the majority of this population is about to be formed of the youth groups. This means that the failure to deal with the problems of unemployment and to listen to the youths' voice, regardless of their affiliations, now represents the biggest of challenges. The voices of the youths should be heard again, regardless of their affiliations, since their voices are now loud and clear.
