It is easier for the Moroccan prime minister to reiterate that he will not be lured into a conflict with the Palace than to confront his party's adversaries outside the conflict ring. Apparently, Abdel Ilah Bin Kiran – who said that these adversaries have disappeared only to re-position themselves in other places – wants to look for the trail of a political and moral agreement that was made between the former opposition and the regime of Al-Hassan al-Thani in order to revive the historic accord between the Palace and the national movement factions. This means that his repeated indications do not aim at removing doubts, but rather imply leaning on the logic of history both in phases of pressure and confrontation and also in periods of harmony and unity. But the accord, which concluded a bitter conflict where every means was used, came under the formula of the consensual rotation that was characterized by a significant deal of self-criticism among all parties. The strategic necessities called on all the parties to meet half way in order to launch change. Now, the accord no longer depends on the negotiations and the rules of give and take that are always affected by the power balances. The accord was rather formulated through a constitutional document with specific content and requirements that allowed for a special edition concerning the peaceful transfer of power. In the previous rotation experience, the Justice and Development party was making its first steps on the road of political legitimacy. Thus, it felt no embarrassment in siding by the cabinet of the Socialist Leader, Abdul-Rahman al-Youssifi, a smart indication to its joining of the national movement especially that its founding leader, Abdel-Karim al-Khatib, was no stranger to that movement's factions. This was an indication to that the young Islamic party is working on joining the big players' club. It was practicing a democracy, some cards of which would remain masked. The party only waited to catch its breath. Then, it worked on finding a place for itself within the opposition since this was the best way to interact with the Street. However, its opposition was directed against the cabinet rather than the regime. By announcing from his current position that he will not be clashing with the Moroccan Monarch, King Mohammad VI, Bin Kiran is summarizing the concepts of opposition and loyalty to the government in the context of the exchange of roles as dictated by the voting ballots; and also so that the royal institution would have the final say in settling political problems and conflicts. Why is a prime minister, who came through the people's choice, looking for a royal support that is unlikely to swim against the current? And why is it that, every time that a regular problem occurs, Bin Kiran would take out the sword of consensus from its case? He knows that the most prominent achievements were accomplished through the political and social transformations dictated by a new constitution that defined the jurisdictions, distributed the powers and achieved the highest level of co-existence between the opposition and the pro-government forces. Thus, Bin Kiran would have just reverted to the protection of the constitutional document. Some matters cannot be settled by disregarding them but rather by openly thinking about them. The prime minister is giving the impression that he is honest and in harmony with his convictions to the extent that he became closer to an opposition side, within the executive apparatus, against what he deems a violation of the constitution. Most certainly, the man realized that being in the position of responsibility exceeds the expectations that he had when he was in the opposition. The opening of the formerly closed doors probably caused him to slow down in fear of stepping on a landmine. How much time should go by before the road becomes paved and clear-featured between an elected government that consolidates the desires of the voters and an opposition that works on overstraining the ruling elite so it may slip or make a mistake in order to benefit from its mistakes? Issues do not follow conventional democratic practices. If this was the case, the oppositionists and the pro-government parties would have succeeded in turning the parliament into a competition ring revolving around the ideas, initiatives, and score-keeping practices between the adversaries. The role of the prime minister does not consist of transforming the complaints into a political program. He realizes that some sides are whispering that he is now just clashing with some staff members under no specific policies although he does have the authority to decide on the different administrative matters. However, the certainty that he is fighting no ghosts is making him keener on abstaining from pushing all the buttons of complaint at once so as to prevent total collapse. To have an oppositionist as prime minister is not warranted. However, this is one way to sound the alarm bells. There are recipes that could halt the effect of the irritants. Such recipes include abiding by the requirements of the democratic game. If the aim now is to corner the people who are opposing change, then this can be only accomplished through actual deeds. The public is monitoring the game. And there is a referee observing the commitment to the rules of the game. As for transferring the game to twisted roads – and this is what the adversaries of change are doing – this is an unethical aspect of the sport and not a civilized scene, but rather one that rejects roughness and cheating.
