Sahara and the Canary Islands: debate on both shores

A few days ago a debate was held at the headquarters of the UNED in Las Palmas entitled 'The agreements on the situation in the Sahara and their consequences for the archipelago', organised in collaboration with the Official College of Political Science and Sociology of the Canary Islands.

Among the main guests were Hach Ahmed, secretary general of the main opposition group to the Polisario (Saharawis for Peace), as well as Rafael Esparza, professor at the ULPGC. And of course, defending the Polisario's position, the omnipresent and reiterative presence of veteran Carmelo Ramírez, Councillor for Solidarity of the Cabildo of Gran Canaria and unofficial delegate of the Polisario in the islands, disguised under the acronym of a regional political party, stood out among others.

The role of Hach and Esparza could not have been more successful or more stoic, given that it is soporific and desperate to run up against the invisible wall of listening to and refuting, time and again, the whole string of outdated resolutions and rulings from the depths of the 20th century, which are difficult to fit in and implement in today's world. As if only the 'de iure' mattered and the 'de facto' mattered so much as to omit it with fascinating indolence after almost half a century of dispute.

Another common refrain, which was not lacking in this debate, is Ramírez's allusions to the contortions, with statements such as "Morocco empowers lobbies and uses blackmail or the buying of wills to campaign for Moroccan theses". It is worth recalling at this point the statements made a few weeks ago (in relation to the Spanish Government's declaration supporting the Autonomy Plan for the Sahara) by Luis Campos, spokesman for Nueva Canarias, about his party colleague Carmelo Ramírez, during his intervention in the Debate on the State of the Canary Islands Nationality, where he said that "Ramírez is in politics to defend the rights of the Saharawi people".

Let's see if in the end it turns out that we are being taken for a ride and what we have is a 'lobby', but a pro-Polisario one that we elected at the polls without knowing it and that we all pay for at the expense of the public purse. It would be a hell of a thing. By the way, after so many decades dedicated to it, do these so-called public servants understand any other way of earning a living than by professionalising politics, and by going from list to list every four years until retirement? Are they aware that there is a whole world of work out there? To come back to us with lobbying nonsense after all this.

In response to Esparza's convenient remarks during the event, regarding the more than remarkable political participation of the population in the Sahara, as opposed to none in the Tindouf camps, Ramirez raised during the event "why the advocates of autonomy for Western Sahara under Moroccan sovereignty do not allow the referendum, if they are so sure that the Saharawis would accept it".

A couple of issues are worth noting here. First, recalling the requirements for a democratic state as formulated by the eminent political scientist Robert Dahl: freedom of association and organisation; freedom of thought and expression; the right to vote and to stand for election; the right to compete for electoral support; accessible alternative sources of information; free, periodic and fair elections that produce limited mandates; and the existence of institutions to monitor. Would Polisario then accept such a hypothetical scenario in the event of independence, after decades of ruling with an iron fist over its population without any checks and balances or accountability? Judge for yourselves, but I don't think you need to be Einstein to realise that the answer would be negative. And in this exercise in 'political fiction', it would be interesting to convey this detail to the population before a vote in a hypothetical referendum, because if they were informed that this would be the political organisation of the state once it became independent, I have no doubt that the autonomy option would win by a landslide.

The other leg of this stool is whether, if Polisario were to accept the autonomy proposal under Moroccan sovereignty, it would have any chance of winning in the framework of an autonomous electoral process, the likes of which it has never known in its single-party history. Through fair democratic elections, and under the protection of international observers. If we take into account that in addition to the existing national or local parties with representation, other opposition parties such as the Sahrawi Movement for Peace, Jat Achahid, etc., could also participate, we can foresee an unmitigated defeat in this future electoral scenario, where with the entire Sahrawi population competing, including the returnees from Tindouf, the Polisario would probably only obtain a small representation and risk being relegated to the sidelines. Certainly, years of internal repression of dissent in the camps would not help in this regard.

This is not a trivial issue, as becoming a minor player, or a mere extra, when you currently control everything in your area of influence, is not acceptable to the leadership of a movement that is comfortable and 'bunkered' in privileged positions, with the pecuniary benefits derived from the control and administration of its only livelihood, international aid. All this leads us to conclude that the Polisario's refusal to accept the autonomy proposal, in the light of the above, is for this reason. Its leadership will never give up the social status and privileges it has achieved, at least not in the short term.

But that is the only solution, autonomy is the starting point for a definitive and realistic solution to almost half a century of conflict, above dogmatism, militancy or romanticism comfortably exercised from the living room of their homes by those who support the Polisario in debates like this one at the UNED in Las Palmas, while a part of the Sahrawi people (I repeat, only a part) suffer and die in the desert, hostages of the eternal journey to nowhere on which a few, privileged leaders have embarked them. And all this is supported by the opposite shore, the Canary Islands. They only have eyes and ears to denounce one side while turning a blind eye to the other. Such double standards.