Calling Morocco a "constitutional monarchy" when it is a hereditary dictatorship with no binding constitution (meaning no greater authority to punish the king for violating the "constitution") discredits all the other points you've made.

Also, there's a difference between undemocratic and antidemocratic. Morocco is antidemocratic, while Polisario is undemocratic. Polisario could be a democracy if it allows its leaders to be elected, but Morocco will never be a democracy since you don't elect kings.

Here's a link to Morocco's constitution in English: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Morocco_2011

We kinda voted for it, so it's quite binding on the king. We also have elections in a couple of months. The king has clear areas where he's limited, for example that he has to appoint the chief of government from the party that came in first.

In practice though, democracy doesn't seem to work at enacting very long term plans. The current dynasty knows how to balance out the different sources of power within the country (local/tribal, economic, and institutional), and they've done it for several centuries. It helps, in our regions, to have symbols to unite so many people who are so different from each other.

Now, the king and the palace are very rich and benefit from their positions. Institutional insiders rig the game. But elected officials do so the most in Morocco, and elected officials extract from the system in the West as well. It's an oligarchy anyway no matter which side you live on.

I don't see how this is any different than the United Kingdom and its monarchy.