The plurality of Sahrawi representation: between the legitimacy of reality and the limits of historical patience

It continues to shape human, political, and social trajectories—in Laayoune, Dakhla, Smara, the Tindouf camps, and the diaspora—without losing any of its symbolic intensity. However, recognizing this continuity is no longer enough to justify a single political representation. A profound transformation is taking place: the Sahrawi voice is no longer monolithic, it is becoming pluralistic. This change is not a crack—it is a sign of political maturity.

The emergence of the Sahrawi Movement for Peace (MSP) illustrates this internal change. The movement does not deny the past or the historical actors; it opens up a necessary political space. Its ambition is clear: to propose a Sahrawi status based on dialogue, dignity, and peace, capable of integrating all components of the Sahrawi people—refugees, populations in territories under Moroccan administration, and the global diaspora.

This position is based on four pillars:

• Recognize the internal diversity of the Sahrawis and not deny it.
• Making the Sahrawi-Sahrawi political contract the basis for a shared future.
• Considering that the legitimacy of a solution will depend on inclusion, not exclusivity.
• Defending a framework for negotiated peace, with institutional, social, and cultural guarantees.

The MSP thus proposes to move beyond the old dichotomy of total independence vs. unconditional annexation, offering a third space for political thought and construction.

Security Council Resolution 2797 (October 31, 2025) marks a decisive turning point. For the first time explicitly, it enshrines the 2007 Moroccan autonomy plan as the “political basis for negotiations” with a view to a just, lasting, and mutually acceptable solution.

It implies three major changes:

• ⁠Autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty is considered the most realistic and feasible solution.
• The framework for negotiations is refocused around this option, reducing the scope for an “all or nothing” approach.
• The historic referendum is no longer the central focus of the international process.

The consequence is clear: the time of absolutes is fading; the time of structured compromise is asserting itself.

An agreement can be written in New York, but its implementation will be played out in the real lives of the Sahrawi people. Any solution that does not integrate the plurality of internal representations will be fragile. This is not an ideological issue, but an equation of political survival.

The MSP, by promoting a pluralistic Sahrawi status, responds directly to this new equation imposed by Resolution 2797:

• It offers a political mechanism for inclusion.
• It creates a space for different generations to take part in the future.
• ⁠It guarantees that a negotiated agreement will not only be signed, but accepted.

Plurality is no longer a threat, but an assurance of sustainability.

We often invoke the “Sahrawi long breath.” But patience does not carry the same weight for:

• ⁠those who have been waiting for 50 years in a refugee camp,
• ⁠those who live under Moroccan administration in the southern cities,
• ⁠those who were born far from the Sahara and have never seen the land they claim.

Political time marches on—sometimes against those who hope to stop it.

The real question is no longer: How much longer can we wait? But rather: How many more generations do we have the right to condemn to waiting?

No lasting peace comes from a single voice.

It comes from an encounter, a political contract, a people who speak to themselves before speaking to the world.

The current conjunction—of an MSP that proposes an inclusive Sahrawi status, and a Resolution 2797 that establishes autonomy as an international basis—opens up a historic moment.

Two paths lie ahead:

• A solution written from the outside, without pluralism—and therefore fragile.
• A solution built from within, through plurality—and therefore legitimate.

The future of the Sahara no longer depends solely on the world. It depends on the ability of the Sahrawis to speak together, not to speak for one another.