A year after it started, Morocco seems to be in need of maintaining the February 20 protest movement, more than some parties wish it to subside and fade away, as evidence to the fact that it was fleeting, circumstantial and emotional. Indeed, no social movement can become a pole of attraction without adhering to the street, expressing its tremors and embodying its ambitions. And no useful policies can be based on negating the facts on the ground, when they come from an overwhelming movement. If it is true that the February 20 Movement was born from the popular anger that rose up with the wave of the Arab Spring, it is also true that such a connection would not have crystallized in the form of demands and protests had not the soil been fertile for producing such a phenomenon. And what should be considered are indications of the persistence of protests, not measuring them with numbers that could be mistaken by the naked eye. Most likely what the movement was unable to achieve, amidst the attraction to its momentum during a year of heated activity, remains at the forefront of priorities which Moroccans – as a state, a government, political parties and civil leaders – need to agree over in order to examine the pace of change that would improve things in the country. Indeed, at the end of the day, the movement was never a political party that would wage the elections and surrender to their results, just as the government is not one that makes decisions independently and is held to account. Rather, it represents a spontaneous expression of necessities that have forced certain segments of the youth to think out loud. This was not the first time angry young people protested on the streets. Indeed, college graduates have for years been developing numerous forms of demonstration and protest. And before Bouazizi's self-immolation in Tunisia turned into a guiding light for revolution against oppressive regimes, young protesters in Morocco had tried to set themselves on fire, just as others had chosen to throw themselves in front of running trains on railway tracks. It is hopelessness that drives one to punish oneself. Yet the February 20 Movement, even if it conveys the voices of the youth, has touched upon the wounds that lie in the forgotten margins and has linked measures of reform with waging a merciless war against corruption, which has made it bring together human rights, political and economic demands. This is precisely where lies the difference between it and political parties that are formed in order to be mediators with the public. The same applies to governments, which are subject to the rules of the political game between loyalists and the opposition. And just as this situation can be a feature of strength, in terms of translating the pulse of the street, it can also turn into a weakness when the situation requires entering into dialogue as equals between those demanding and those responding. Yet experience has shown that what is most important lies in abiding by the requirements of open dialogue on major political and economic problems, as well as social difficulties. And just as the movement's fervor has had a tremendous impact on shaping the features of flexibility and of seizing the right moment, its persistence will continue to be required in order to guard against any straying off the path to democracy. Returning to raise the slogans of the war against corruption on the occasion of its first anniversary only means that the fighting has not stopped, and that the rounds ahead will be tougher still, because they will touch upon the kind of change that reflects positively on the lives of citizens. From such a perspective, the legitimacy of the movement is not connected to the size and nature of its constituents – whether they are Leftists, Islamists or Liberals – nor is it subjected to the standards of union work, which yearns for striking collective deals. Moreover, it seems to be different from the kinds of upheavals witnessed by universities. Certainly the matter requires objective scrutiny that would answer the central question: why did this happen? And which response would be most able to absorb the phenomenon that has been distinguished by its popular charge, something which has often led to hiding or evading it? Beyond justifying it with the tidal wave that has struck countries of the Maghreb and of the Arab World, Morocco's young people, who had once been described as negative about engaging in the democratic process, have seemed throughout this experience to embrace democratic values with more conviction. Indeed, the slogan that sums up the movement's mission in consecrating dignity, freedom and social justice is not separate from the challenges of the current phase. The movement, at its core, is not negative towards everyone. On the contrary, it speaks in everyone's voice, and doubtless has the boldness to reveal larger plans for salvation. There remains only to listen to beloved voices, and it is a mistake to characterize them as having become marginal and without influence. What if Moroccans were to reinterpret their new constitution? It speaks very clearly of the opposition's role in such a way as to ensure the strength of the minority in the face of the majority. And it would be more useful to classify February 20 as an untamed opposition movement.
