From Armed Struggle to Historical Responsibility: Is It Time for the Polisario Front to Disband?

italiatelegraph

* Dr. Abdellah Chanfar

  It was born through a painful and traumatic cesarean. Has the time not come for the Polisario Front to dissolve itself and lay down arms, following the path of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)?
  Do armed separatist movements have the right to survive outside the framework of historical time? Can the doctrine of perpetual conflict remain intact while the world redraws the boundaries of legitimacy? Does the armed secessionist project still have any rational grounds for survival, in an era marked by expanding regional blocs and the fading of narrow ethnic and nationalist fragmentations?
  The experience of the Polisario Front — which, over half a century, has neither gained control of territory, nor established a state, nor secured meaningful recognition from the United Nations — now stands in need of a decisive reckoning: Is it not politically and morally incumbent upon it to follow the PKK’s example and renounce the path of armed struggle?
1. From the Legitimacy of the Idea to the Usefulness of Continuation
  Nearly fifty years after its creation, the Polisario Front is facing an existential paradox:
  It has not achieved any decisive international recognition, has built no credible institutions within Moroccan territory, and has failed to protect those it claims to represent from poverty, hunger, exile, and despair.
  Is it reasonable for such an armed entity to continue operating in a volatile region, under regional patronage, with no political horizon, merely reiterating a rhetoric that has lost relevance in the face of Morocco’s autonomy initiative — an initiative that has garnered growing international support?
  Does the continued militarization not itself constitute a form of symbolic violence against the populations forcibly confined in the Tindouf camps?
2. When a “Liberation Movement” Becomes a Strategic Liability
  Initially, the Polisario claimed to embody the aspirations of the Sahrawi people for independence. Today, however, it has become a closed, politically isolated organization, surviving on humanitarian aid and imposing unwanted tutelage over a population that did not freely choose its leadership.
  What alternative political vision does the Polisario offer? What kind of state does it envision? Who would guarantee security, economic viability, or diplomatic recognition?
  A project that lacks a coherent state narrative, sovereign capacities, and international recognition becomes nothing more than rhetorical exercises on shifting sands.
3. From the PKK to the Polisario – Lessons in Strategic Disbandment
  In the 1990s, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) reassessed its foundational goals. It formally renounced its demand for an independent Kurdistan, opting instead for cultural and political autonomy. It declared a ceasefire and initiated a partial dismantling of its military structure.
  Does the Polisario possess the same political courage?
  Could it evolve from a metaphysical military entity into a civilian political organization engaged with Morocco’s autonomy plan, active in local governance and development?
  To disarm is not to be defeated — it is a sign of political maturity and realism.
4. Who Represents the Sahrawis? The Crisis of Representation Amid Internal Transformation
  One of the Polisario Front’s most serious structural flaws today is its loss of representational legitimacy:
  A clear majority of residents in Morocco’s southern provinces participate in national elections at rates exceeding the national average. Tribal, communal, and youth leaderships have increasingly rejected separatist discourse and embraced integration within the Moroccan state. Meanwhile, the Polisario remains entrenched in Tindouf, serving the narrow interests of a few powerful families.
  Who authorized the Polisario to speak on behalf of all Sahrawis? Why is there an absence of internal elections or genuine leadership turnover?
  How can a movement that refuses referenda in Morocco justify keeping people confined in closed camps, denying them the very freedom it claims to defend?
5. After the Gun – The Future of Armed Activity in the Maghreb
  The Maghreb region is experiencing increasing security fragility.
  United Nations reports have documented links between elements of the Polisario and illicit trafficking networks, including arms and narcotics.
  Cross-border terrorism in the Sahel is now supported by logistical structures that resemble those sustaining the Polisario’s armed operations.
  If the armed wing persists, will it not risk being reclassified as a para-terrorist entity?
  Can the region’s evolving geopolitical context afford to tolerate a militarized enclave amid widening zones of instability?
Conclusion: Between the Responsibility to Withdraw and the Courage to Reposition
  In today’s context, political wisdom demands that the Polisario Front disarm, dissolve its armed structures, and engage in a dialogue based on Morocco’s autonomy proposal.
  To dismantle oneself is not a form of failure — it is a historical correction.
  Such a step could constitute an honorable exit, saving innocent lives, restoring political balance in the Maghreb, and opening the door to transitional justice after decades of rupture and alienation.
  Is it not politically mature to answer autonomy with demobilization — just as the Kurds chose the state over illusion, identity over abstraction, and life over death?

italiatelegraph