Between the Justice of the Cause and the Courage to Carry It: Self-Reflection and Institutional Renewal for Shaping the Future

 

By: Mohamed Helleb

There are causes in the history of peoples that do not need to repeatedly prove their justice as time passes, because they have transcended the limits of a particular political moment and become part of memory, collective consciousness, and history. They are causes rooted in the human right to freedom and dignity, and in the right of peoples to self-determination and independence.

As generations succeed one another and circumstances change, a just cause does not need to prove its justice as much as it needs people capable of carrying it forward, understanding the transformations of time, and knowing how to preserve its essence while developing the tools with which to defend it.

Our national cause is one such cause. It is the cause of a people that has held firmly to its land despite division, preserved its identity despite attempts to strip it away, and paid a heavy price for its freedom and right to live with dignity. Since the outbreak of the revolution and the establishment of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro in May 1973, the cause has been associated with the sacrifices of entire generations, a long history of resistance and steadfastness, and a conviction that neither decades nor changing circumstances have been able to erase from the consciousness of our people.

Accordingly, if we want to engage in discussion, particularly as we approach one of the milestones in our people's struggle—the 17th General Popular Congress—then the justice of the cause, the legitimacy of the right, and the scale of the sacrifices made will certainly not be the subject of debate. Quite simply, these are matters too fundamental to be reduced to political point-scoring.

What needs to be discussed, rather, is us: those who carry this cause today; those who have inherited a long experience, a memory laden with sacrifice, and institutions that have accumulated over decades, all within an international and regional reality that has changed considerably since the revolution began.

The question that imposes itself, calmly and responsibly, is this: **Have our tools, mindset, and institutions changed to the same extent as the world around us? And are what we possess today sufficient to carry the cause toward its future?**

There is certainly nothing in raising this question that diminishes the past or judges the founding generation by the standards of the present. At its core, it is an attempt to honor that past by protecting what its pioneers achieved and developing it, rather than merely remembering it.

The beginnings coincided with circumstances in which even the most basic conditions that today appear necessary for a project of such magnitude were absent. Yet those who launched the revolution did not wait for all the conditions to be fulfilled. Instead, they began creating what did not yet exist.

Perhaps the late El-Ouali Mustafa Sayed expressed this idea when he said: **“The revolution in Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro was proclaimed on the basis of things that were bound to happen, not things that already existed.”** This statement is not merely a description of a bygone phase; it is one of the most important keys to understanding the mindset of the founding generation.

It was not resources that created the revolution, but will, faith in the people, belief in the justice of the cause, and the ability to transform possibility into reality.

Here, the questions we should ask today begin: If the founding generation did not wait for the conditions to be complete, should we wait for them?

And if those who came before us were able to turn little into much, are we—with the experience, knowledge, institutions, relationships, and skills accumulated today—really incapable of creating what the present stage requires?

To understand these questions and their implications, they must be broken down into a number of themes that can help provide answers.

### The People: The Beginning and the End

One of the most striking features of El-Ouali Mustafa Sayed's thought was the constant presence of the people as both the source of strength and the ultimate purpose of the project.

Among his statements in this regard was: **“The secret of our existence, the secret of our gains... the reasons for existence and gains, the reasons for dignity and respect, is one single reality called the people.”**

He also said: **“The real power that makes history and is capable of proposing solutions to problems is the power of the people.”**

He summarized the matter in another statement: **“There is no benefit, power, or respect except for the popular base.”**

If we take these words seriously, they lead us to a conclusion that should not be controversial: strengthening society is not a marginal social issue, but part of the very core of the national project. A cause is not carried by slogans alone, nor by speeches or political positions alone. It is carried by generations; it is carried by individuals; and it is carried by institutions that shape those individuals and preserve their ability to endure and continue.

Therefore, education, healthcare, culture, media, the armed forces, and youth are not issues separate from the cause. At their core, they are part of our capacity to protect it.

This brings us to the objective expressed by El-Ouali, may he rest in peace, when he said: **“The ultimate goal we aspire to achieve is an organized, united, capable, respected people, living above their own land.”**

This is where we must pause and ask ourselves honestly: What have we done over the past decades to build this people in the way we want? Does everything we do today bring us closer to this goal, or have some of our practices, intentionally or otherwise, begun to take us further away from it?

The Sahrawi people, by and large, are not detached from understanding the nature of the current stage or recognizing the challenges surrounding them. Experience has shown that when citizens understand the motives for change and recognize the benefits it can bring, they do not become obstacles to it; rather, they become among its most important sources of success.

However, anything new—meaning anything introduced from outside our established experience—even when it serves a legitimate interest, may initially generate a degree of caution and reservation. This is natural in societies that have accumulated long experience and fear that poorly considered changes may become additional burdens.

That is why the path to winning the confidence of the popular base does not lie in imposing change on it from afar. It lies in going to the people, listening to them, explaining what is intended to change and why, and involving them in the discussion from the outset.

Being present among citizens, within institutions, sectors, and different fields is not merely an organizational task or a seasonal duty. It is part of politics itself. Those who want to change society must be present among its members, understand their real concerns, and make them partners in shaping solutions rather than mere recipients of them.

Accordingly, young people and intellectuals, as some of society's most important sources of energy and strength, should not wait for a moment of political or organizational reckoning—the congress, for example—to become active. Their presence should be continuous, in the field, in discussions and activities, and within institutions. They should engage more closely with citizens' daily lives, because reform that does not reach the grassroots remains an idea suspended in the air.

### The Stronger We Become, the Weaker Our Adversary Becomes

El-Ouali said: **“The stronger we become, the weaker our enemy becomes.”**

The statement may be brief, but it contains a comprehensive conception of power. Power is not merely what a person possesses for direct confrontation. It also lies in a cohesive society, quality education, healthcare that protects people, media capable of addressing domestic and international audiences, a culture that safeguards memory and identity, effective institutions, and young people who have a genuine place in shaping the future.

These are among the factors that strengthen the internal front and should be among our highest priorities.

The conflict has been prolonged, circumstances have changed, and the world around us has changed. Under such conditions, the internal front cannot remain merely a space for passive endurance. We need a strong and cohesive society, capable of producing expertise, confronting phenomena that drain its strength, and providing the minimum conditions for resilience and a dignified life.

Naturally, a person who feels dignity is better equipped to endure.

A young person who finds education, employment, participation, and hope is less likely to fall victim to despair, drugs, migration, or other phenomena that exhaust societies.

Therefore, the struggle for society is not separate from the struggle for liberation.

### Time: A Factor We Must Not Overlook

Long conflicts are measured not only by the events that take place within them, but also by what time does to the parties involved. From the beginning, the adversary understood the importance of time and placed its bets on it—and continues to do so.

Those who founded the national project, launched the revolution, and contributed to building the Front and its institutions were, ultimately, human beings. They had their lifespans; the years passed over them; and one after another, they departed. This is natural.

But the question that must be asked is: What have we, politicians and ordinary citizens alike, done to ensure that this biological reality does not turn into a political, institutional, or intellectual vacuum?

Have we prepared the generations that will assume responsibility? Have we given young people the space they deserve? Have we opened the path for them toward leadership and decision-making? Have we invested enough in their education and development?

Here, generational renewal becomes a genuine necessity.

Generational renewal does not mean eliminating the previous generation, denying its contributions, or replacing people merely for the sake of replacement. It means recognizing that the future belongs to those who will build it, and that institutions that do not renew themselves eventually become incapable of keeping pace with the world.

We need young people whose role is not merely to implement decisions, but to participate in thinking, decision-making, and assuming responsibility. We need competence, ability, and contribution to be the fundamental criteria.

### Responsibility Is Not a Privilege

Among the most powerful aspects of El-Ouali's words was his clarity regarding the relationship between those in positions of responsibility and the popular base. He said: **“If one of you is responsible and an individual from the popular base comes to him seeking something, fulfill his need while he stands with his head held high, with his dignity intact.”**

He said elsewhere: **“Dependence will separate the cadres: those among them who have begun leaning toward opportunism, riding the masses, exploiting their gains, and then hiding behind them... and those who will naturally remain true vanguard figures in relation to the popular base, giving rather than taking.”**

These are not merely administrative recommendations. They represent a vision of responsibility in which the official is ultimately a servant of the project and of the people, not someone who possesses privileges over them.

Hence, reviewing the relationship between institutions and the popular base must be an ongoing necessity.

Institutions cannot be strong if they lose the confidence of the masses, nor can leadership be effective if it becomes detached from the grassroots.

We cannot demand sacrifice and steadfastness from society and then deny it the right to be heard, to participate, and to see the impact of what it contributes.

### National Dialogue

If the people, as we have seen, are the source of strength, and if their unity is the foundation of success, then internal dialogue becomes a necessity.

Here El-Ouali said: **“Great success lies in our existence as one united, cohesive bloc... a bloc, even if small.”**

The cohesion we need today does not mean that we must be identical in every respect, nor does it mean eliminating differences. A strong society is not one that never disagrees; it is one that can manage its differences without allowing them to become forces of fragmentation.

Therefore, the need for comprehensive national dialogue involving the various components and groups of the Sahrawi people, wherever they may be, appears more urgent today than ever.

It should not be a dialogue aimed at finding someone to blame, but rather at finding what is right. It should allow difficult questions to be raised, acknowledge shortcomings and failures, rebuild trust between society and institutions, and make citizens partners in discussing their future rather than merely recipients of decisions.

Most importantly, we must become convinced that criticism does not mean betrayal, disagreement does not mean division, and acknowledging a mistake does not mean defeat.

The real danger begins when fear of criticism becomes stronger than the desire for reform.

### Honesty With Ourselves

Perhaps the most difficult step in any process of review is acknowledging that some things no longer work as they once did.

This does not mean that everything has failed, nor that everything that came before should simply be discarded or abandoned. It simply means that time has changed.

There are policies that need development, institutions that need renewal, mechanisms that require review, competencies that must be given opportunities, and mistakes that must be acknowledged.

Honesty with ourselves is not self-flagellation; it is a prerequisite for the ability to correct course.

We cannot move from error to correctness if we are unwilling to acknowledge that error exists in the first place. Nor can we envision the future while continuing to read the past solely through the lens of what we wish to remember.

We need to read the past in its entirety—with its successes and failures, victories and mistakes. Then we must read the present as it is, rather than as we wish it to be. Only then can we envision the future.

### The World Has Changed, and We Must Change Too

No one can deny that today's international landscape is radically different from what it was when the revolution began.

The balance of power has changed, alliances have changed, the nature of interests has changed, and the tools of influence have changed. Media, technology, and information have become essential elements in the production of power.

For this reason, keeping pace with the international environment is no longer an option.

We need new mechanisms of thought, specialized expertise, accurate knowledge of what is happening in the world, and the ability to adapt to transformations rather than waiting for circumstances to return to what they once were.

The principle does not change, but the way in which it is served changes. The objective does not change, but the tools we use to achieve it must be capable of evolving.

This applies to politics, diplomacy, the military, media, and culture, as well as to capacity-building and institution-building.

### Allies Between Loyalty and Realism

In this regard, one of El-Ouali's statements appears particularly important. He said: **“The bond is formed scientifically on the basis of interest, and through it it becomes stronger and grows. The greater the common interest, the stronger the bond; the lesser the interest, the weaker the bond... This means that the bond is not something abstract determined through imagination or emotion.”**

This was, may he rest in peace, a realistic reading of the nature of relations. Alliances matter, and allies matter, but political relations cannot be based on emotion alone.

States are guided by interests, and shared interests are what give a relationship the capacity to endure.

Therefore, we must be clear with our allies, understand what we need from them, and at the same time understand what we can offer.

We need to strengthen our alliances and use them to compensate for shortcomings and achieve the gains that are possible.

But an ally should never become a substitute for ourselves. The strongest alliance is one in which the other side finds a partner who knows what it wants and possesses sufficient internal strength to be a partner rather than merely a recipient of assistance.

### It Is Not Enough to Rely on the Justice of the Cause

The justice of our cause is a fact. International legitimacy is an important element, allies are important, and political and diplomatic action is important. But none of these elements can become a substitute for building our own strength.

A right needs someone to defend it. Legitimacy needs someone capable of making effective use of it. An ally needs a capable partner. Diplomacy needs institutions and expertise. And the cause needs a strong people.

Therefore, we should not remain prisoners of the idea that time alone will solve the problem, or that the justice of the cause will inevitably impose the outcome without us developing our ability to exert influence.

Experience has shown that the occupation has not achieved its ultimate objective. But experience also tells us that the conflict is prolonged, that our adversary reads the passage of time, and that we must read it too.

We must read the past, understand the present, and envision the future—both near and distant.

### From a Policy of Defense to Creating the Initiative

The length of a conflict can make us prisoners of reaction: something happens and we respond; a position is issued and we comment on it; a crisis occurs and we try to contain it. In this way, time becomes a series of reactions.

The better course is for peoples engaged in long struggles to take the initiative.

Initiative does not belong to one field alone. It can be political, diplomatic, military, media-related, cultural, social, or institutional.

We must be the ones asking the questions, creating the files and dossiers, initiating discussions, and developing the ability to influence events rather than merely respond to them.

In the defense and military sphere, the changing nature of conflicts likewise requires the modernization of capabilities and an avoidance of remaining prisoners of traditional patterns. The objective is not to repeat what was done in the past, but to understand what the world has become and develop what can be developed within available resources, existing realities, and legal and humanitarian frameworks.

A tool that was effective in one era is not necessarily sufficient in another.

### Our Vital Sectors Are Part of the Struggle

If we want to strengthen the internal front, we need a clear hierarchy of priorities: the military, education, healthcare, media, and culture.

These should not be viewed as separate sectors, but as an integrated system for building a capable society.

A strong military needs education and training. An educated society needs healthcare. Education and healthcare need media and culture that preserve people's dignity and identity. The media itself needs professionals who understand how to communicate with the new world.

Therefore, advancing these sectors must be at the heart of any serious national review.

### Youth: The Battle We Must Not Lose

If the adversary has understood the importance of time, it is only natural that it understands the importance of youth.

Young people in any society are the force most capable of shaping the future, but they are also the most vulnerable to being lost when they find nothing connecting them to that future.

Our people have faced, and continue to face, social phenomena whose seriousness should not be underestimated: drugs, displacement, idleness, and other phenomena that can drain society from within.

These phenomena cannot be fought through slogans alone.

We need alternatives: better education, vocational training, sports and culture, spaces for creativity, genuine participation, and above all, a sense among young people that they have a place and a role in their national project.

This should apply, according to circumstances, to young people in all arenas of action and struggle—in the refugee camps, in the occupied territory, and in the diaspora.

### The 17th Congress: A Pivotal Milestone

From this perspective, the 17th General Popular Congress of the Front should not pass as an ordinary organizational event.

It should be a pivotal moment for review and frank self-examination, a moment to open space for new generations, and an opportunity to reassess institutions and tools.

Above all, it should be an opportunity to raise questions that perhaps we have delayed asking:

**What has been achieved? What has not been achieved? Why? What has changed around us? What has changed within us? What should remain? What should change? And what do we want to become in the years ahead?**

But the importance of the congress does not begin on the day it convenes. It begins the moment preparations begin.

We are approaching an important political and organizational milestone. The work of its preparatory committee is expected to begin very soon, followed by political seminars that should constitute some of the most important spaces for national and organizational discussion preceding the congress.

These seminars are not merely procedural stages on the road to the congress. If they are to fulfill their true function, they are among the fundamental mechanisms that allow society to discuss its concerns, activists to present their visions, and the congress ultimately to receive the conclusions of this discussion in their most mature form.

It is also through these spaces that the will of the grassroots takes shape, delegates are elected, and nominations are put forward for consideration by the congress.

Accordingly, participation should not begin during the final days set aside for elections. Genuine participation begins now.

This is precisely where the responsibility of young people, intellectuals, and other qualified professionals comes into play. They should not wait until the last moment to appear in the field, nor should their relationship with the congress be reduced to the election days or to campaigning for one candidate or another.

In some previous congresses, particularly recent ones, practices have emerged whereby some individuals remain distant from discussion and grassroots engagement throughout the preparatory period, only to appear in the final days attempting to influence the results or support particular names, before returning after the congress to ask why the outcome did not correspond to their expectations.

This approach does not help build stronger institutions, nor does it give society a genuine opportunity to express its priorities.

It would be more effective for participation to begin from the outset: for young people and intellectuals to take part in the seminars, engage with the grassroots, listen to citizens, bring their concerns into the public debate, contribute to developing proposals and solutions, and exercise their right to choose on the basis of programs, competence, and the ability to assume responsibility.

In this sense, the congress becomes the property of the entire people, rather than merely an organizational date on which everyone waits for the results of the ballot box.

A congress that fears difficult questions may miss its greatest opportunity.

A congress that opens the door to criticism, review, and renewal—and begins doing so from the earliest stages of preparation—can become the starting point for a new and different phase.

Most importantly, participation in this process should not be separated from the daily lives of the grassroots. The closer young people, intellectuals, and qualified professionals are to citizens, and the more present they are within institutions, sectors, and different fields, the better able they will be to understand people's real concerns and convey them more effectively to the national debate.

The grassroots do not need people who speak on their behalf from afar as much as they need people who live among them, listen to them, explain things to them, convince them, and share responsibility with them.

From this perspective, the 17th General Popular Congress can become an opportunity not only to choose individuals, but also to choose a new way of working: a way that makes participation continuous, discussion early, responsibility collective, and the popular base present from beginning to end.

### Was El-Ouali Predicting the Future?

When we return today to some of the statements of the late El-Ouali Mustafa Sayed, it may seem as though he could see the future.

But the matter may be deeper than that.

He did not know the unseen. He simply read reality. He understood the nature of the conflict, placed the people at the heart of the equation, recognized that self-reliance was fundamental, understood that alliances are governed by interests, knew that unity was necessary, and realized that difficult circumstances should not be a reason to stop.

That is why some of his statements today seem like questions formulated decades ago and delivered to us in the present.

Their value lies not merely in the fact that they were spoken in the 1970s. Their true value lies in belonging to a way of thinking that sought to look beyond the immediate moment.

That is the lesson we need: to read reality rather than merely describe it, to envision the future rather than wait for its surprises, and to create the conditions rather than wait for them.

### True Loyalty to the Sacrifices

Perhaps it is easy to celebrate the past, remember the names of the martyrs, recall the great battles, and revisit images of the early days. All of this is both a right and a duty.

But true loyalty to those who came before us is not expressed only by commemorating their memory. It is expressed by being capable of continuing what they began with the tools of our own era.

The founding generation did not wait for the revolution to be possible by every conventional measure. They made it possible.

They did not wait for power to exist. They built it.

They did not wait for the people to be organized. They worked to organize them.

Today, we face a different responsibility. We have a long experience, institutions, expertise, new generations, greater knowledge, and broader relationships.

But we also face challenges that did not exist in the same form before.

Therefore, our task cannot simply be to preserve what we inherited. We must develop it.

### Conclusion

Last but not least, loyalty to those who laid the foundations, launched the revolution, struggled, and sacrificed their lives for the cause is not demonstrated by repeating what they said, but by possessing their courage to confront reality and create what is possible.

The adversary's bet on time will not be defeated by wishes, but by a stronger people, institutions capable of renewal, a rising generation of young people, and the courage to engage in honest self-reflection and correct our course.

A just cause needs the will to protect it, the strength to carry it, and the intellect capable of envisioning its future.

The 17th Congress is not a moment to celebrate what we have accomplished. It is an opportunity to decide honestly: **What do we preserve? What do we correct? And what do we build for the future?**