On November 10, 2025, the leaders of the political parties were summoned by the Royal Palace to a consultative meeting regarding the autonomy initiative. They all emerged with the same statement. They praised the royal wisdom and pledged to submit their remarks “as soon as possible.” Not one of them had been asked for his opinion beforehand. No minutes of the meeting were published. The decision had already been taken, and it seems that the consultation came to endorse it, not to participate.

A new international turning point after Resolution 2797

Morocco is currently experiencing the most delicate phase of the Sahara issue in its modern history.  Since Security Council Resolution 2797, issued in October 2025, which described the Moroccan autonomy initiative as “the realistic and viable solution,” the file has entered a new turning point.

The Madrid round of talks was held in February 2026 and, for the first time in decades, it brought together the foreign ministers of Morocco, Algeria, the Polisario Front, and Mauritania in a single negotiating room under direct American supervision. Another round was scheduled for Washington in May 2026 and might lead to a “framework agreement” that will redraw the features of the entire region.

Tangible diplomatic progress is to be recorded for Morocco here, even if its final results are not yet clear. But the question that is not being asked in Morocco is: who decides on the file of the national issue?

An unwritten tradition: a monopoly in decision-making

There is a deeply entrenched tradition in handling this issue. Since the Green March in 1975, the Sahara issue has remained a monopoly of the Royal Court. Not by the text of a law, or by an explicit and clear constitutional provision, but by an unwritten rule understood by everyone: it is forbidden to approach the Sahara file.

It is an issue that is not discussed in Parliament and that the political parties do not debate or include in their electoral platforms.  The press covers it with extreme caution. Civil society is ignorant of its details.  University researchers who approach it with a critical methodology find themselves before a very low academic and political ceiling. 

Declared victories … and missing details

The result: an issue that touches upon sovereignty, territory, and the future is being handled with a secretive mentality. Thirty-seven million Moroccans constantly hear that Morocco has “achieved a diplomatic victory,” but they do not know exactly what the negotiation was about, what was offered in return for this victory, and where lie the red lines on which Morocco will not compromise.

Territorial integrity is not being questioned. Territorial integrity is not up for debate here. What is legitimately debatable is how this territorial integrity is being handled and the nature of the price paid for it.

The 2020 deal: a sovereign decision without public debate

In December 2020, Trump recognized the Moroccan identity of the Sahara.  It is being bandied about that normalization with Israel was the price.  A decision was made behind closed doors, was announced in a tweet on the X platform, and put Moroccans before a fait accompli. No parliamentary debate took place.  The political and symbolic cost of this normalization was not discussed publicly.  No alternatives were presented.

When controversy erupted in some cultural and political circles, the official response was clear: diplomacy is a sovereign matter reserved for His Majesty the King.

Documents no one read

In February 2026, when the Algerian delegation left the meeting hall in Madrid through a side door to avoid photographers, and when leaks revealed that the updated Moroccan initiative — 40 pages that Moroccans had not read – had become “the only document on the table,” the Moroccan media celebrated a new victory.

But no one explained to the Moroccan citizen what those pages contained in detail. Nor what the powers of the “Permanent Technical Committee,” established or to be established under United States-United Nations supervision would be.  Nor what the “Framework Agreement” anticipated in Washington would mean on the ground.

The diplomatic victory is real. But the democratic question is real as well.

Manufactured consensus and the fear of questions

In political science studies, there is a concept called “manufactured consensus.”  It is when a fundamental issue is presented to the public in a way that brooks no debate: you are either with us or against us, either a patriot or a traitor.

In Morocco, it is enough to ask a question about the negotiation mechanisms on the Sahara file to be classed among the doubters regarding territorial integrity. Asking about the price is interpreted as doubting the gains.  And demanding transparency is read as serving the adversaries.

This disconnect is dangerous because it does not protect territorial integrity; instead, it weakens it in the long run. 

Secrecy: negotiating necessity or political construct?

There is an argument that is repeatedly relied upon: that disclosure weakens negotiating cards, and that sensitive sovereign issues require strategic secrecy.  The argument has its validity during a critical phase of negotiation.  However, it fails to answer legitimate questions:

 Why the secrecy before the negotiating and also after?  Why isn’t the general framework discussed publicly?  Why aren’t periodic reports on the trajectory of the issue submitted to Parliament?

The real answer lies not in the negotiating strategy.  It lies in the nature of the political system.

A citizen outside the negotiating chamber

When Massad Boulos, Trump’s advisor and special envoy, sits at the negotiating table in Madrid or Washington, he does so with a clear political mandate.  When the Moroccan delegation led by the Minister of Foreign Affairs sits, it does so with a direct royal mandate that is not open to discussion or accountability.

There is no trace of the Moroccan citizen in this negotiating chamber.  No elected institution represents him in this process.  There is no mechanism for subsequent review. There is no guarantee that what is to be signed will ever be presented to an elected representative body in an actual, not protocolary way.s

A snapshot of a larger debate   

The Sahara is a national issue and an issue of rights, geography, and identity.  But the way in which this right, this geography, and this identity are handled is, in reality, a snapshot of the deeper debate about the type of democracy Morocco wants for itself.

It is also a snapshot of the type of democracy it proposes to its citizens in the southern province.

And when the Sahara issue is resolved – and it will ultimately be resolved – the question will remain in the memory of future generations: was the Moroccan citizen a witness to his country’s history or a partner in making it?

The difference between the two answers is no less important in the long run than the results of any round of negotiations.

Abdelaziz El Abdi is a writer, novelist, and host of the podcast “Talk that is not Ephemeral” in Morocco.