Sudan and the Difficult Choices

Dr Abdel Azim Hassan, Lawyer

The incident of the Black Stone nearly ignited a war among the tribes of Mecca. Yet the ingenious solution devised by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to manage that crisis not only defused the conflict but also offered humanity a practical model of what is today known as the “round table”—where all parties sit on equal footing in search of a solution. However, merely sitting together is not enough; consensus does not become reality unless it is accompanied by objective solutions and clear procedural measures.

In Sudan, the prevailing political behaviour has long been a struggle over undeserved power. Time and again, a political party—or an alliance of parties—has sought to court the military establishment to gain authority. Yet that same establishment soon turns against them. With the repetition of this pattern, the military institution has effectively become the largest political force holding power—either governing alone or sharing authority while retaining at least the lion’s share.

Thus, the conflict is no longer about how to build the state, but rather about who controls power. Amid this struggle, the nation itself has remained outside the equation of competition. The truth that must be acknowledged is that continuing this approach will only lead to a complete political vacuum. As long as civilian actors remain unwilling to transcend their differences for the sake of their country, a moment may come when there is nothing left for them to contest.

Politics, in its proper meaning, is the management of people’s affairs in a manner that preserves their interests and fulfils their aspirations.

From this perspective, it becomes necessary to seek a political settlement formula based on broad national consensus.
In its initial phase, such a formula could begin by bringing together the political forces opposed to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) rebellion. At a later stage, it could evolve into a national roundtable that includes all parties to the conflict. However, participation in these deliberations should not automatically confer the privilege of leading the transitional phase, which should instead be entrusted to individuals unaffiliated with any political party or alliance.

Ending Sudan’s wars will not be achieved through slogans, but through decisions and difficult choices that require political courage and genuine will. These choices must open the way for national competencies that do not belong to the entrenched camps of the old guard—a political class that has not only failed to govern the country effectively but also obstructed reform efforts for 70 years.
Today, Sudan does not need more competition for power. What it needs is the courage to choose between saving the state and losing it.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=11910