Every society can be described as a struggle for power among several groups (example: the bourgeoisie against the proletariat in Marxist theory). In many cases, especially in democratic societies, there is a majority holding the key positions of power, and several minority groups trying to wrestle as much power as possible away from the majority.
Often this fight is viewed through the moral lense, and the struggle of the minorities is construed as a fight for justice.

Question 1: Is the struggle / fight of the minorities always just and justified ? If the answer is No : What is it that makes a struggle within society just?
Question 2: Is it always morally reprehensible that the majority tries to remain in power, or are they morally obliged to share power with minorities? Why?

Now lets imagine the same society a few decades later: the power balance has shifted, and the former minority is now in power (be it that it became the majority; be it that it has ousted the majority from power by whatever means).
Question 3: Whose struggle is now just / justified? What if the former majority, which turned into the new minority, tries to get back to power: is their struggle just? Or would it be mere revenge, driven by resentment and anger, nothing that could be morally justified?

The big underlying question is IMO : do we have a kind of "absolute" moral grid we can apply to societies to decide whose struggle is just? Or is justice always and necessarily relative because every group within society sees its own fight as the just cause, whether they are the majority or minority?