Between Ideology and Pragmatism: The Spanish Radical Left's Controversial Stance on Moroccan Sahara...
238
I confess here that it was the writings of Si Lahcen Hadad that pushed me to take a closer interest in this Spanish left, which positions itself in opposition to the Sánchez government, which is itself left-wing. Not reading Spanish, I am therefore somewhat less inclined to pay attention to the repeated ignominies of this left, sick from not being able to access power, sick from its aborted history, sick from what it actually is. So, to exist, it invented a cause. Too bad if it understands nothing about it, too bad if it harms Spain’s interests, too bad if it distorts history, ignores geography and demography, too bad if its reasoning, if it is reasoning at all, is far from logical, too bad if it lies outrageously. The important thing is to exist and to appear to the Spanish public as the defender of the causes of the most deprived... No matter if those people harmed the Spanish people; no matter if they have Spanish blood on their hands. Manifest bad faith.
In Spain, therefore, a significant part of the radical left, mainly represented by formations such as Unidas Podemos, an alliance between Podemos, Izquierda Unida, and other minority groups, maintains a posture—let’s say critical, if not belligerent—towards the Kingdom of Morocco.
This contradictory position is fed by a historical prism marked by colonial memory, “anti-imperialist” struggles, but also by the question of the Sahara, called the "Spanish Sahara" until 1975, as it was a former territory under Spanish domination until the Green March in 1975.
This radical left considers Morocco a belligerent and threatening actor. The debate is not limited to territorial disputes: it fits into an ideological vision where the Moroccan state is often presented as an authoritarian and repressive regime, described as a neocolonial power. This is what underpins the repeated support for the artificial Sahrawi cause, presented as an anti-colonial and anti-imperialist fight. Support for the Polisario Front thus seems embedded in the DNA of these “gauchos,” regardless of developments.
Historically, several components of the Spanish left have expressed clear support for the Polisario Front, founded in 1973, which was nevertheless supported by Gaddafi, then hosted, supplied, and armed by the Algerian regime with the aim of harming Morocco’s interests. This support manifests itself in various forms:
- Filing parliamentary motions in defense of the right to self-determination for this small part of the Sahara alone;
- Participation in international pro-Polisario forums and associative networks that blindly support it, regardless of reports on the embezzlement of aid, rapes, and flagrant human rights abuses in Tindouf;
- Pressure on the Spanish government and European institutions to recognize the political status of the Sahara, neglecting to mention that it was formerly occupied by their country, as a territory to be decolonized, in opposition to Morocco’s historical sovereignty. Even the autonomy proposal, well known in Spain, does not seem to satisfy them.
However, it should be noted that this support comes in a context of strong internal contestation in Spain. Since the socialist government of Pedro Sánchez expressed its support in 2022 for the Moroccan autonomy plan, this radical position has somewhat fractured. This change reflects a pragmatic adaptation by some to the geopolitical, economic, and migratory realities that closely link the two countries.
Faced with challenges related to managing migratory flows through the occupied enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, as well as security and economic cooperation with the Kingdom of Morocco, the Spanish government has refocused its diplomacy. This has led to a gradual distancing of the left—but not the radical left—from the Polisario, thus marginalizing its influence on official policy.
In this context, some voices within the radical left still try to persuade European institutions to keep pressure on Morocco, demanding that the so-called Western Sahara remain central to priorities to resolve an “unresolved colonial conflict.” Parliamentary groups and “pro-Sahrawi” NGOs continue to denounce bilateral agreements between Madrid and Rabat, refusing that the issue be sidelined in favor of a more “pragmatic” diplomacy.
Spanish and European institutions, the theater of these ideological tensions, thus see the radical left forces seeking to have the question of the so-called Western Sahara recognized as a “state matter.” They denounce Moroccan control over this dossier and strongly contest the diplomatic normalization policies carried out by Madrid.
This line reflects a deep political fracture, where post-colonial idealism and outdated self-determination claims clash head-on with political realism marked by the search for regional strategic balances.
Support for the so-called Sahrawi cause is not without controversy. Activists, commentators, and victims have recalled that the Polisario Front was, in the past, involved in violent operations in Spanish territorial waters, causing the death of Spanish fishermen.
These painful episodes resonate in Spanish public opinion and fuel a virulent critique of radical positions that support a movement with a past combining political struggle and violent actions. This memory weighs heavily in contemporary debate and is exploited by political forces opposed to these radical left positions, notably the Spanish right.
The question of the Sahara, a territory that was Spanish for a time, remains an important point in relations between Spain and Morocco. However, current political, economic, and security realities push for pragmatic Spanish diplomacy, favorable to strengthened cooperation with Rabat, thus marginalizing the radical stance on both governmental and international stages.
The historical legacy is here perfectly exploited for contemporary necessities in managing Ibero-Moroccan relations.
Today, after consulting numerous articles and writings recounting the positions of this left of another era, I understand a little better Si Lahcen Hadad's fight on the subject, and even more so his sharp responses to the remarks of a certain Ignacio Cembrero, whom I now see only as a bland neurotic. Thank you, Si Lahcen.
One question remains: why is the Moroccan left not more inclined to take a stand and strongly denounce the alienated stance of their Spanish counterparts?
Share:
Between Ideology and Pragmatism: The Spanish Radical Left's Controversial Stance on Moroccan Sahara...
copy:
https://bluwr.com/p/281705762
La gauche radicale espagnole, le Maroc et la question du bout de Sahara un laps de temps espagnol...
76
J’avoue ici que ce sont les écrits de Si Lahcen Hadad qui m’ont poussé à m’intéresser de plus près à cette gauche espagnole, qui campe à l’opposé de la position du gouvernement de Sánchez, pourtant lui aussi de gauche. Ne lisant pas l’espagnol, je suis donc un peu moins enclin à prêter attention aux ignominies pourtant répétées de cette gauche, malade de ne pas pouvoir accéder au pouvoir, malade de son histoire avortée, malade de ce qu’elle est en fait. Alors, pour exister, elle s’est inventée une cause. Tant pis si elle n’y comprend rien, tant pis si cela nuit aux intérêts de l’Espagne, tant pis si elle dénature l’histoire, fait fi de la géographie et de la démographie, tant pis si son raisonnement, s’il en est un, est loin de toute logique, tant pis si elle ment outrageusement. L’important, c’est d’exister et de passer aux yeux du public espagnol comme la défenseuse des causes des plus démunis… Peu importe si ceux-là ont nui au peuple espagnol ; peu importe s’ils ont du sang espagnol sur les mains. Une mauvaise foi manifeste.
En Espagne, donc, une partie importante de la gauche radicale, principalement représentée par des formations telles qu’Unidas Podemos, une alliance entre Podemos, Izquierda Unida et d’autres groupes minoritaires, entretient une posture, disons critique, pour ne pas dire belliqueuse, à l’égard du Royaume du Maroc.
Ce positionnement antinomique se nourrit d’un prisme historique marqué par la mémoire coloniale, les luttes « anti-impérialistes », mais aussi par la question du Sahara appelé "Sahara espagnol" jusqu'en 1975, car ancien territoire sous domination espagnole jusqu’à la Marche Verte en 1975.
Cette gauche radicale considère le Maroc comme un acteur belliqueux et menaçant. Le débat ne se réduit pas à des différends territoriaux : il s’inscrit dans une vision idéologique où l’État marocain est souvent présenté comme un régime autoritaire et répressif, décrit comme une puissance néocoloniale. Voilà donc sur quoi repose le soutien répété à l’artificielle cause sahraouie, présenté comme un combat anti-colonial et anti-impérialiste. Le soutien au Front Polisario semble ainsi inscrit dans l’ADN de ces gauchos peu importe les évolutions.
Historiquement, plusieurs composantes de la gauche espagnole ont exprimé un soutien clair au Front Polisario, fondé en 1973, qui a pourtant été soutenu par Kadhafi, puis hébergé, nourri et armé par le régime algérien dans le but de nuire aux intérêts du Maroc. Ce soutien se manifeste sous diverses formes :
- Dépôt de motions parlementaires en défense du droit à l’autodétermination de cette seule petite partie du Sahara ;
- Participation à des forums internationaux pro-Polisario et à des réseaux associatifs le soutenant aveuglément, peu importe les rapports sur les détournements d'aides, les viols et outrance aux droits de l'homme à Tindouf ;
- Pression sur le gouvernement espagnol et sur les institutions européennes pour qu’elles reconnaissent le statut politique du Sahara, qu’ils oublient de dire anciennement occupé par leur pays, comme territoire à décoloniser, en opposition à la souveraineté pourtant historique du Maroc. Même la proposition d’autonomie, bien connue en Espagne, ne semble pas leur convenir.
Il faut cependant savoir que ce soutien s’inscrit dans un contexte de forte contestation interne en Espagne. Depuis que le gouvernement socialiste de Pedro Sánchez, en 2022, a exprimé son soutien au plan d’autonomie marocain, cette position radicale s’est quelque peu fracturée. Ce changement reflète une adaptation pragmatique de certains aux réalités géopolitiques, économiques et migratoires qui lient étroitement les deux pays.
Face aux défis liés à la gestion des flux migratoires à travers les enclaves occupées de Ceuta et Melilla, ainsi qu’à la coopération sécuritaire et économique avec le Royaume Marocain, le gouvernement espagnol a recentré sa diplomatie. Cela a conduit à un éloignement progressif de la gauche, mais pas de la gauche radicale, vis-à-vis du Polisario, marginalisant ainsi son influence sur la politique officielle.
Dans ce contexte, certaines voix au sein de la gauche radicale tentent encore de persuader les institutions européennes de maintenir la pression contre le Maroc, réclamant que le Sahara dit occidental reste au cœur des priorités pour régler un « conflit colonial » non résolu. Des groupes parlementaires et des ONG "pro-sahraouis" continuent de dénoncer les accords bilatéraux entre Madrid et Rabat, refusant que la question soit délaissée au profit d’une diplomatie plus «pragmatique».
Les institutions espagnoles et européennes, théâtre de ces tensions idéologiques, voient ainsi les forces radicales de gauche chercher à faire reconnaître la question du Sahara dit occidental comme une « affaire d’État ». Elles dénoncent la mainmise marocaine sur ce dossier et contestent vivement les politiques de normalisation diplomatique menées par Madrid.
Cette ligne traduit une fracture politique profonde, où l’idéalisme post-colonial et les revendications autodéterministes d’un autre temps s’opposent frontalement à un réalisme politique marqué par la recherche d’équilibres stratégiques régionaux.
Le soutien à la cause dite sahraouie n’est pas sans controverse. Des militants, commentateurs et victimes ont rappelé que le Front Polisario a, par le passé, été impliqué dans des opérations violentes dans les eaux territoriales espagnoles, causant la mort de pêcheurs espagnols.
Ces épisodes douloureux résonnent dans l’opinion publique espagnole et nourrissent une critique virulente des positions radicales qui soutiennent un mouvement au passé mêlant lutte politique et actions violentes. Cette mémoire pèse fortement dans le débat contemporain et est exploitée par des forces politiques opposées à ces positions de gauchos radicaux, notamment la droite espagnole.
La question du Sahara, territoire espagnol pendant un temps, reste un point important dans les relations entre l’Espagne et le Maroc. Cependant, les réalités politiques, économiques et sécuritaires actuelles poussent une diplomatie espagnole pragmatique, favorable à une coopération renforcée avec Rabat, marginalisant ainsi cette posture radicale sur la scène gouvernementale et internationale.
L'héritage historique est ici parfaitement exploité pour les nécessités contemporaines dans la gestion des relations ibéro-marocaines.
Aujourd’hui, après avoir consulté de nombreux articles et écrits relatant les positions de cette gauche d’un autre temps, je comprends un peu mieux le combat de Si Lahcen Hadad sur le sujet, et encore plus ses réponses cinglantes aux propos d’un certain Ignacio Cembrero, que je ne perçois plus que comme un névrosé sans relief. Merci, Si Lahcen.
Une question tout de même : pourquoi la gauche marocaine n’est-elle pas plus encline à prendre position et à dénoncer avec force la posture aliénée de leurs homologues espagnols ?
Share:
La gauche radicale espagnole, le Maroc et la question du bout de Sahara un laps de temps espagnol...
copy:
https://bluwr.com/p/281503776
Morocco, History, and Geography: The Foundations of Political Reality and Territorial Integrity...
580
Politics cannot be separated from history or geography. It consists of a set of actions and decisions aimed at organizing a society internally, as well as in its relations with the rest of the world. It is always situated within a context shaped by the two fundamental dimensions of history and geography, which are by no means mere backdrops but rather provide the framework within which political projects, conflicts, and developments unfold. Politics may be influenced by an ideology—born of a philosophy—or simply shaped by a given context, but such influence rarely lasts.
History plays a fundamental role in understanding political phenomena. A country’s institutions, laws, and values are rooted in its collective memory, an inheritance made up of major events, breaks, or continuities with the past. Borders, for example, are often drawn following wars or treaties, the outcome of ancient or recent conflicts. They remain visible marks of past rivalries, defeats, victories, and compromises. Relations—whether of solidarity or rivalry—between nations, regions, or communities are explained in light of shared or divergent histories.
The present Kingdom of Morocco cannot be understood without reference to its millennial origins, to the centuries-old Sharifian Empire, nor to the successive dynasties that shaped its relationship to religion, allegiance, and the centralization of power throughout different eras.
Similarly, geography significantly influences the choices and constraints of public policies. The distribution of natural resources conditions economic development, territorial organization, and power relations. Relief, climate, and access to maritime routes determine possibilities for urbanization, agriculture, communication, and defense. Border situations impose specific diplomatic and security policies, while landlocked or insular areas require tailored strategies. Some authors even describe Morocco as an “island country” due to its geographical configuration.
It is therefore inconceivable to conceive of effective or legitimate politics without taking history and geography into account. Every choice, reform, or political ambition must be based on a deep understanding of the territory and collective memory; ignoring one or the other exposes one to illusion, misunderstanding, or even failure.
Regarding the Sahara, referred to as the “Western Sahara,” the geography of this region is undeniably contiguous to Morocco, physically, demographically, and historically: the Saharan populations have largely contributed to the country’s evolution. Its history was written through the successive allegiances of its tribes to the sultans of Morocco, and the Sharifian kingdom thus constitutes a nation-state established long before the contemporary era.
Weakened by having missed the crucial turn of the industrial revolution, the Sharifian Empire was dissected from south to north, but also from the east. The so-called Western Sahara was annexed by Spain, which exercised colonial control there from 1884 to 1975. This situation facilitated France’s domination over territories grouped into French West Africa, part of which later became Mauritania. France also appropriated the eastern part of the Sharifian Empire, annexed de facto to its departments conquered from the Ottoman Empire and called French Algeria. The remainder was placed under French protectorate, while northern Morocco came under Spanish rule.
Independence, achieved in 1956, and the gradual decolonization of Sidi Ifni and Tarfaya concerned other regions only later.
On November 28, 1960, France authorized the proclamation of Mauritania’s independence—a region then claimed by Morocco, as were territories under Spanish control that Morocco considered its own. At that time, there was a Moroccan ministry called the “Ministry of Mauritanian and Saharan Affairs,” headed by Mohammed Fal Ould Oumeir, a representative of those territories.
From 1963 onwards, the kingdom raised the issue of the Spanish Sahara before the Decolonization Commission. The situation became complicated when newly created Mauritania also claimed the territory, notably to pressure Morocco, which did not recognize Mauritanian independence until 1969—nine years after its proclamation. Morocco continued to claim the Spanish Sahara peacefully, preventing the Liberation Army from pursuing military actions in the region.
In 1973, the creation of the Polisario Front (Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro) marked a new stage. This movement initially aimed to unite the Saharan territory with the “motherland.” But in a context of regional rivalries and ideological tensions, the Saharan question was instrumentalized by various actors.
Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya played a decisive role in the rise of the separatist Polisario, supporting and arming the movement in a "revolutionary" and pan-Arabist logic, while seeking to destabilize the Moroccan monarchy. Later, Gaddafi himself admitted having made a “strategic mistake” in backing this group, which remains a destabilizing factor in the region today.
In 1975, a peaceful turning point occurred: bolstered by the International Court of Justice’s opinion recognizing ties of allegiance between Saharan tribes and Moroccan sultans, the late King Hassan II launched the Green March to general surprise. This mobilization pushed Spain to withdraw from Laâyoune in favor of Morocco, which immediately reclaimed the territory. Mauritania, although having occupied adjacent zones, ultimately withdrew, leaving Morocco alone against the Polisario Front, actively supported by Algeria, which hosted, armed, financed, and elevated the movement into a “republic.”
Houari Boumédiène’s Algeria exploited the situation to weaken its Moroccan neighbor, even calling the Saharan issue a “thorn in Morocco’s side,” a way of exacting revenge for the crushing defeat in 1963.
This dispute has often overshadowed the deep history of ties between Morocco and these territories under Sharifian authority well before the colonial era. For Morocco, territorial integrity rests firmly on the constants of history and geography—major arguments. The rest is merely a temporary construction without foundation, destined to fade into oblivion in the near future.
Moroccans know this very well… Perhaps not everyone else…
Share:
Morocco, History, and Geography: The Foundations of Political Reality and Territorial Integrity...
copy:
https://bluwr.com/p/275453220
Histoire et géographie : piliers incontournables de la politique marocaine...
121
La politique ne peut être dissociée de l’histoire ni de la géographie. Elle consiste en un ensemble d’actions et de décisions visant à organiser une société sur le plan interne, mais également dans ses relations avec le reste du monde. Elle s’inscrit toujours dans un contexte façonné par les deux dimensions fondamentales que sont l’histoire et la géographie, qui ne sont nullement de simples arrière-plans, mais offrent bien la trame sur laquelle s’articulent projets, conflits et évolutions politiques. Elle peut être influencée par une idéologie, née d’une philosophie, ou simplement forgée à partir d’un contexte donné mais cela ne dure guère.
L’histoire joue un rôle fondamental dans la compréhension des phénomènes politiques. Institutions, lois et valeurs d’un pays s’ancrent dans sa mémoire collective, héritage constitué d’événements majeurs, de ruptures ou de continuités avec le passé. Ainsi, les frontières, par exemple, sont fréquemment tracées à la suite de guerres ou de traités, résultant de conflits anciens ou récents. Elles restent les marques visibles de rivalités, de défaites, de victoires et de compromis du passé. Les relations, qu’elles soient de solidarité ou de rivalité entre nations, régions ou communautés, s’expliquent à la lumière d’histoires partagées ou divergentes.
Le Royaume du Maroc actuel ne saurait être compris sans référence à sa genèse millénaire, à l’Empire chérifien pluriséculaire ni aux dynasties successives qui ont façonné son rapport aux religions, à l’allégeance ou à la centralisation du pouvoir, selon les époques.
De la même façon, la géographie influence considérablement les choix et contraintes des politiques publiques. La répartition des ressources naturelles conditionne le développement économique, l’organisation territoriale et les rapports de force. Le relief, le climat ou l’accès aux voies maritimes déterminent les possibilités d’urbanisation, d’agriculture, de communication ou de défense. Les situations frontalières imposent des politiques diplomatiques et sécuritaires spécifiques, tandis que les espaces enclavés ou insulaires requièrent des stratégies adaptées. Certains auteurs n’hésitent pas à qualifier le Maroc de “pays insulaire” du fait de sa configuration géographique.
Il est donc inconcevable de penser une politique efficace ou légitime sans tenir compte de l’histoire et de la géographie. Chaque choix, chaque réforme, chaque ambition politique doit s’appuyer sur une compréhension approfondie du territoire et de la mémoire collective ; ignorer l’un ou l’autre, c’est s’exposer à l’illusion, à l’incompréhension, voire à l’échec.
Au sujet du Sahara appelé « occidental », la géographie de cette région se situe indéniablement dans le prolongement du Maroc, tant sur le plan physique, démographique qu’historique : les populations sahariennes ont largement contribué à l’évolution du pays. Son histoire s’est écrite au fil des allégeances successives de ses tribus aux sultans du Maroc, et le royaume chérifien constitue, de fait, un État-nation institué bien avant la période contemporaine.
Affaibli pour avoir raté le virage fondamental de la révolution industrielle, l’Empire chérifien sera dépecé du sud vers le nord, mais aussi à partir de l’est. Le Sahara dit occidental fut annexé par l’Espagne, qui y exerça un contrôle colonial de 1884 à 1975. Cette situation a favorisé la mainmise de la France sur les territoires regroupés dans l’Afrique occidentale française, dont une partie allait former la Mauritanie. La France s’appropria aussi l’est de l’Empire chérifien, annexé de facto à ses départements conquis sur l’Empire ottoman et appelés Algérie française. Le reste sera placé sous protectorat français, tandis que le nord du Maroc passait sous domination espagnole.
L’indépendance obtenue en 1956 et la décolonisation progressive de Sidi Ifni et Tarfaya n’ont concerné d’autres régions que plus tard.
Le 28 novembre 1960, la France autorise la proclamation de l’indépendance de la Mauritanie, région revendiquée alors par le Maroc, tout comme les territoires sous contrôle espagnol, considérés comme siens. À cette époque, il y eu un ministère marocain dénommé « des Affaires mauritaniennes et sahariennes » fut confié à Mohammed Fal Ould Oumeir, représentant de ces territoires.
Dès 1963, le royaume porta la question du Sahara espagnol devant la commission de décolonisation. La situation se compliqua lorsque la Mauritanie nouvellement créée revendiqua également ce territoire, notamment pour exercer une pression sur le Maroc, qui ne reconnaîtra l’indépendance mauritanienne qu’en 1969, soit neuf ans après sa proclamation. Le Maroc continua de revendiquer pacifiquement le Sahara espagnol, empêchant l’Armée de libération de poursuivre ses actions militaires dans la région.
En 1973, la création du Front Polisario (Front populaire de libération de la Saguia el Hamra et du Rio de Oro) marqua une nouvelle étape. Ce mouvement visait initialement à rattacher le territoire saharien à la “mère patrie”. Mais dans un contexte de rivalités régionales et de tensions idéologiques, la question saharienne fut instrumentalisée par divers acteurs.
La Libye de Mouammar Kadhafi joua notamment un rôle décisif dans la montée en puissance du Polisario indépendantiste, soutenant et armant le mouvement dans une logique “révolutionnaire” et panarabiste, tout en cherchant à déstabiliser la monarchie marocaine. Plus tard, Kadhafi admettra lui-même avoir commis une “erreur” stratégique en soutenant ce groupe, qui demeure aujourd’hui encore un facteur de déstabilisation dans la région.
En 1975, un tournant pacifique se produisit : fort de l’avis de la Cour internationale de justice reconnaissant des liens d’allégeance entre les tribus sahariennes et les sultans marocains, feu SM Hassan II lança la Marche verte à la surprise générale. Cette mobilisation poussa l’Espagne à se retirer de Laâyoune au profit du Maroc, qui reprit immédiatement possession du territoire. La Mauritanie, bien qu’ayant occupé des zones limitrophes, finit par se retirer, laissant le Maroc seul face au Front Polisario, soutenu activement par l’Algérie qui hébergea, arma, finança et érigea le mouvement en “république”.
L’Algérie de Houari Boumédiène exploita la situation pour affaiblir son voisin marocain, n’hésitant pas à qualifier le dossier saharien de “caillou dans la chaussure du Maroc”, façon de se venger de la défaite cuisante de 1963.
Ce contentieux a souvent masqué l’histoire profonde des liens entre le Maroc et ces territoires sous autorité chérifienne bien avant l’ère coloniale. Pour le Maroc, l’intégrité territoriale repose solidement sur les constantes que sont l’histoire et la géographie; des arguments majeurs. Le reste n’est qu’une construction éphémère sans fondement, vouée à s’effacer dans l’oubli dans un futur proche.
Les Marocains le savent très bien...Peut être pas les autres...
Share:
Histoire et géographie : piliers incontournables de la politique marocaine...
copy:
https://bluwr.com/p/275432061
Ahmed Faras: The Eternal Legend of Moroccan Football
807
I have been fortunate enough to know Ahmed Faras. It is unbearable for me to speak of him in the past tense, someone who has been part of my life for so long. It had been ages since he last touched a ball. Few are still alive who saw him play, those who, match after match, would await his dribble, his runs down the wing, his shot, his goal.
Faras was an outstanding man, with an incredible shyness and reserve. Even when present somewhere, he was always on the sidelines: discreet, courteous, kind, with deep sensitivity, affection, and great touchiness.
But Faras will always be part of the present. He is a true legend of Moroccan and African football; legends never die.
Fedala saw him born in the cold of December 1947. Mohammedia would be his city and Chabab his eternal club. At the time, there was no such thing as a transfer market, no migrations, no football mercenary spirit. You were born in a club, learned to play there, and you stayed. His temperament was not that of a typical striker: there was no aggressiveness, no cunning. He compensated with his genius and never needed to dive or roll on the ground to sway a referee or create confusion. His genius spared him all that. He was an exceptional striker who marked the history of Moroccan and continental football. The turf at El Bachir football stadium helped him, at that time, it was the best in Morocco.
Ahmed Faras was the product of a generation shaped by the structured environment of the youth sports schools run by the Ministry of Youth and Sports, a system supposedly dismantled by so-called administrative and political reforms. Yet, it was there that Morocco's champions were formed, across all sports. His early path was marked by the guidance of renowned trainers such as Lakhmiri, who helped shape numerous Moroccan talents. This solid foundation allowed him to develop technical skills and a sense of teamwork very early on, which would become hallmarks of his play.
Ahmed Faras spent his entire career at Chabab Mohammedia, from 1965 to 1982, never having a professional contract—such things didn’t exist in Morocco then. There’s no need to mention signing bonuses or performance awards, even with the national team. His loyalty to Chabab is remarkable. He would lead the club to a Moroccan championship and become its top scorer. He would bring along with him his playing friends—Acila, Glaoua, Haddadi, and many more.
Faras was a pillar of the Moroccan national team. With 36 goals in 94 caps, what a historic scorer for the Atlas Lions! He captained the national team for eight years, playing in the 1970 World Cup in Mexico and the 1972 Munich Olympic Games.
In 1975, Ahmed Faras entered the legend by becoming the first Moroccan to win the African Ballon d’Or, an award that underlined the quality and consistency of his play. This distinction placed him among the greatest players on the continent, competing with the top African stars of his era. There was talk of a transfer to Real Madrid...but at the time Moroccan league players were barred from moving abroad under penalty of losing their place in the national team. The idea was, thus, to strengthen the domestic league...
The peak of his career was surely the 1976 Africa Cup of Nations (CAN), won by Morocco in Ethiopia. Faras was the leader on the pitch, the tournament’s top scorer, and his influence was decisive for this historic triumph—the only major African title that Morocco has ever won. He scored crucial goals against Nigeria and Egypt in that tournament, perfectly embodying the role of playmaker and team leader on the field. To this day, he remains the only Moroccan captain ever to lift the coveted African trophy.
I have been a few times to that ground in Addis Ababa where he lifted the trophy, and every time, his image dominates my thoughts. An indelible black-and-white, forever etched in the history of the Kingdom and in the memory of Moroccans who followed the match at the time through the voice of one Ahmed Elgharbi...no live broadcasts back then.
He was a respected and heeded captain, guided by great coaches: Abdelkader Lakhmiri, Blagoe Vidinic, Abdellah Settati, Jabrane, and especially Gheorghe Mardarescu during that epic campaign in the land of Emperor Haile Selassie. His charisma and vision of the game were crucial in unifying the team and leading them to the summit of African football. Faras embodied the spirit of conquest and national pride throughout the tournament. The squad was selected and led by an outstanding manager as well Colonel Mehdi Belmejdoub.
His name is forever bound to that legendary achievement, a symbol of the potential of Moroccan football when guided by exemplary leadership, committed and knowledgeable managers, and players who were true warriors for their jersey’s colors.
Ahmed Faras was not just a talented player. After his retirement, he continued to share his passion, getting involved in youth training, passing on his knowledge and love for the game to the new generation. He has been a source of inspiration for so many generations of players.
Knowing Lhaj Ahmed Faras meant knowing a symbol of loyalty, talent, and unique leadership in Moroccan sports. His name will forever remain inscribed in collective memory as that of a football giant, whose legacy goes beyond sport to inspire entire generations.
Rest in peace, my friend. One day, a great football stadium in this country will bear your name, and it will be fitting, if the players follow your example, honor your career, and if the public rises to your greatness, paying tribute to your distinguished name.
So Lhaj Ahmed Faras, if you ever meet Acila up there, ask him to give you another nice pass, and tell Glaoua to defend well...
Know that your star shines and will always shine above us in the sky of the beautiful country you cherished so much.
---
Share:
Ahmed Faras: The Eternal Legend of Moroccan Football
copy:
https://bluwr.com/p/272896781
