The Spanish capital, Madrid, is witnessing a new round of consultations between Morocco and the Polisario Front, under U.S. sponsorship, amid leaks suggesting that Rabat has presented an expanded autonomy proposal stretching to forty pages—rather than the shorter initiative submitted in 2007.
Yet despite the expanded legal detail and length of the document, the fundamental question remains unanswered:
Can this formula truly resolve the Western Sahara conflict, or is it merely an attempt to repackage Morocco’s longstanding position without addressing the root of the issue?
⸻
Forty Pages… But Sovereignty for Whom?
According to circulating reports, the Moroccan proposal includes:
• Elected local institutions
• Broad legislative and administrative powers
• Local economic and cultural management
• A regional judicial structure
However, the core of the document, based on the leaked elements, keeps actual sovereignty in the hands of the Moroccan state.
Security, defense, foreign policy, and ultimate constitutional authority remain exclusive competencies of the central government.
The proposal reportedly also includes mechanisms allowing the suspension or restriction of autonomy powers if they are deemed to undermine “territorial integrity.”
This raises a renewed question:
Can a political entity whose powers are subject to revocation by the central authority truly be considered fully autonomous?
⸻
The Nature of the Political System… The Core Dilemma
The issue is not limited to the wording of the document, but extends to the nature of the political system responsible for implementing it.
The political system of the Kingdom of Morocco is structured around a strong executive monarchy, where strategic powers—including security, the military, constitutional authority, and major state orientations—are concentrated in the monarchy.
Although the 2011 Constitution was adopted in a particular regional context, critics argue that the essence of power distribution did not fundamentally change, and that ultimate decision-making authority remains centralized in the palace.
From this perspective, a decisive question emerges:
How can a system described by its critics as insufficiently democratic, with limited effective separation of powers, genuinely grant meaningful autonomy protected by irreversible constitutional guarantees?
In comparative international experiences, autonomy arrangements typically rest on democratic environments, judicial independence, political pluralism, and robust constitutional oversight mechanisms.
Within a highly centralized system where ultimate authority resides with the monarch, any autonomy arrangement may—according to this view—remain more of an administrative delegation than a balanced political contract.
In other words, an entity cannot be more democratic than the state that contains it. If the state itself is subject to debate regarding the depth of its democratic structure, the guarantees of autonomy inevitably become structurally questionable.
⸻
Self-Determination Is Present in Discussions… But Not in the Plan
One of the reported developments from the Madrid meeting is that self-determination was raised during discussions.
However, the Moroccan plan does not include a clear mechanism for organizing a referendum allowing the Sahrawi people to choose among multiple options, including independence.
This omission is not a minor legal detail; it reflects the core of the dispute.
Western Sahara remains listed by the United Nations as a non-self-governing territory.
International law recognizes the inherent right of peoples under such circumstances to self-determination.
Autonomy could be one option.
But when autonomy is presented as a substitute for a referendum rather than as one choice within it, it becomes an imposed framework rather than a freely exercised decision.
⸻
Five Decades of Control… Without Political Integration
More than five decades have passed since Morocco established control over most of the territory.
If the Moroccan political project had successfully produced genuine integration, the question of self-determination might have faded over time.
Instead, demands for independence persist inside and outside the territory, refugee camps remain, and the conflict continues to occupy space on the international agenda.
The Sahrawi people have not transformed into a politically integrated bloc within the Moroccan monarchical system, nor have they become part of its traditional political allegiance framework.
This political reality cannot be bypassed by expanding the number of legal provisions.
⸻
Human Rights… The Unresolved Test
Another point raising concern is Morocco’s continued opposition to expanding the mandate of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara to include human rights monitoring.
Under these circumstances, many ask:
How can the independence of the proposed autonomy be guaranteed in the absence of an independent international mechanism to monitor rights and freedoms?
Any political formula requires enforceable guarantees—not merely written clauses.
⸻
Washington Between Political Pragmatism and International Legitimacy
The U.S. engagement reflects a desire to break the stalemate and produce a workable settlement.
However, the Western Sahara dispute is not merely a technical administrative file; it is a matter of political and legal legitimacy.
Any solution that does not directly pass through the freely expressed will of the concerned population will remain fragile, regardless of international backing.
⸻
Conclusion: The Document Has Evolved… But the Core Conflict Has Not
The forty pages may be more detailed and structured than the 2007 proposal.
They may represent a more developed negotiating platform compared to the past.
Yet as long as they do not include an explicit and clear mechanism for self-determination—and as long as the political system expected to grant this autonomy is viewed by critics as centralized and insufficiently democratic—any proposed formula will remain subject to deep skepticism.
Autonomy could be part of the solution.
But it cannot replace the Sahrawi people’s right to freely determine their future.
In the end, historical conflicts are not resolved by the number of pages in a document,
but by the extent to which they respect the will of peoples and provide genuine constitutional guarantees.
