The successive Moroccan cabinets failed to recognize the danger of the unionist alliances in the 1990s until a political clash occurred where the opposition parties demanded the ousting of the cabinet through a vote of confidence in the parliament. At the time, the contestants were busy with their show of force while the referee alone was preoccupied with the post-confrontation phase. The preparations for the power rotation plan took a longer while, and this served to replace the culture of rejection and protest with the concept of participation in decision-making. The Moroccan cabinet of Islamic leader Abdelilah Benkirane is facing a similar situation. Indeed, the unions that had struck social peace agreements with the former cabinets seem to be reinventing themselves today. The protests that these unions are carrying today and the growing pace of the strikes are nothing but the tip of the iceberg of a conflict that might become severe. No cabinet likes to reconsider the decisions that it made, including decisions pertaining to salary cuts. However, the most powerful unions will not just accept such decisions because there is a difference between the legitimate strikes and securing the proper functioning of the Administration and institutions. Between the two conflicting positions, dialogue – which is supposed to constitute the right framework to discuss demands and respond to them – is absent. The party that will demonstrate the highest level of flexibility and the highest ability to contain the crisis with the least possible amount of losses will be the party that is more likely to solve this problem. The contractors who have always been supportive of the successive cabinets have now become part of the protests against the cabinet. This is an unprecedented move that is very indicative of the backdrop of this protest movement. Thus, the unions and their traditional adversaries have met in one framework. This will make it more difficult to hold a social dialogue including the cabinet as a third party. It is good to remember that this dialogue had laid the ground for the agreement between the opposition and the Authority during the early phase of the power rotation. Who knows, the collapse of the social dialogue might now lead to contradictory conclusions, unless self-restraint prevails again and a reality-check is performed. The cabinet seems to be keen on relying on the democratic legitimacy that it gained through the voting ballots; while the unions seem to rely on the legitimacy of the popular demands for better economic and social conditions. At the end of the day, there is a need to try to respond to these demands in order to preserve the credibility of a cabinet that brandished the slogan of war against corruption and tyranny; or to create a greater deal of harmony between the unions and their demands. The confrontation can be easily simplified and confined to either acceptance or rejection, but some matters cannot be tackled through radical decisions and require a margin to allow for some maneuvering. The cabinet made a mistake when it vowed that it will not take back its decision pertaining to the salary cuts. Similarly, the unions were too hasty as they were satisfied with the legitimacy of the strikes without taking the necessary accompanying measures mainly because the laws governing the parties are yet to be completed. Completing these laws might become a good excuse to attract all the different conflicting parties, including the unions, the cabinet and the employers, to the dialogue table. The conflicting positions will not be solved by one party winning over the other. Instead, there is a need for an honest agreement. For instance, the cabinet may say that it can only respond to twenty or thirty percent of the unions' demands. Similarly, the unions may accept that option in order to save face. However, if each party were to cling to its original position, then this will only lead to a crisis. The alarm bell that the unions are sounding not only concerns the professional files but also a bunch of economic and social challenges. Most certainly, listening to an organized and responsible voice is better than creating a void that might ultimately be filled with angry voices. Prime Minister Abdelilah Benkirane has always claimed that the Arab Spring which brought him to power is still on. On the other hand, the opposition factions accused him of driving the country to the unknown. The same rational and realistic experience that allowed for containing the Moroccan movement can always serve to reach salvation for those who seek out agreement. Instead of seeking to start a fire, it is better to reconsider the social issues. Some sides believe that the current confrontation is nothing but an attempt at putting sticks in the cabinet's wheels. However, all the different partners, including parties, unions, pro-government and opposition sides, are responsible for preserving this experience despite its limited performance during this first year. It is better for the decision-makers to take the initiative since they are both willing and ready to do so. The ability to achieve is proportionate to the willingness and democratic mechanisms.
