Between Dr Tareq Al-Hadi and the Legacy of the NCP Regime: The Crisis of Populist Discourse in Sudan

Ramadan Ahmed
Social media platforms have been abuzz with news of Brigadier Dr Tareq Al-Hadi’s retirement, with most reactions opposing the decision, given the role he played during the war in boosting morale under extremely challenging circumstances. At the same time, others have adopted a more measured view, considering the decision appropriate given Sudan’s current situation and the sensitivity of the external file, which requires greater discipline in internal discourse—particularly as Dr Tareq spoke on sensitive political issues while still wearing a military uniform. Some went to extremes in expressing schadenfreude, reflecting a broader tendency towards excess and hostility in political disagreement.
This article seeks to examine the roots of the populist discourse associated with Brigadier Dr Tareq, placing the matter in its proper context—away from harsh reproach or vindictive rhetoric—while also exploring the type of discourse required in the present phase and beyond.
Brigadier Dr Tareq Al-Hadi represents a widely prevalent tendency within Sudanese society that may be described as populist discourse. This is a form of discourse that fails to distinguish between what ought to be said publicly and what should remain within private deliberation. Such conflation between the public and private spheres was one of the principal factors behind the international isolation faced by the National Congress Party (NCP) regime from its early days. The crisis of discourse remained a defining feature of that regime, as denunciations of global powers—such as the United States and Russia—became embedded in public rhetoric, reflecting what might be termed an approach of “uprooting the other” rather than engaging with or constructively interacting with it, even at the level of political adversaries.
Within this framework, government officials—and, at times, even intellectuals—have tended to resort easily to emotional mobilisation when addressing the public. This approach prioritises agitation and mass appeal over rational analysis. Over time, this mentality became entrenched as a broader political culture during that era, deployed against opponents through labels and accusations that were not always grounded in reality, even when those opponents were merely political rivals.
Today, the ongoing war stands as one of the most powerful drivers of such populist discourse, often to an excessive degree. Yet closer examination reveals that, despite the gravity and clarity of the issues at stake, the situation does not require such emotional escalation. Rather, it calls for a rational discourse that presents facts as they are—one that is credible both domestically and internationally.
It was hoped that the fall of the NCP regime would mark a decisive break with this legacy and usher in a new phase in which public opinion would be reshaped on the basis of reason and restraint. Unfortunately, populist discourse has not receded; on the contrary, it has intensified, at times reaching levels of demagoguery where rational argument is dismissed as naïve or idealistic.
At its core, populist discourse is driven by fear of the other and a desire to exclude them. This generates a persistent inclination towards mobilisation aimed at neutralising or marginalising the other, or monopolising public support. Such fear is often rooted in a crisis of legitimacy: the more a ruler lacks a clear popular mandate, the more they rely on emotional appeal to compensate. Conversely, where a leader enjoys genuine legitimacy, there is less need for such tactics. Instead, they address the public through the programme that entrusted them with authority, focusing on delivering commitments rather than confronting opponents. In such cases, relations with others shift from “elimination” to “attraction” or even cooperation where possible.
By contrast, those who come to power through questionable means often develop an enduring preoccupation with legitimacy. This drives them towards sustained reliance on populist rhetoric, invoking emotional triggers—whether religious, ethnic, or regional—in order to confront a “real” or even imagined adversary.
Looking at regional experiences, one can identify more balanced models of political discourse, such as in Turkey and Qatar. In Turkey, the experience of the Justice and Development Party demonstrated a relatively mature approach, grounded in national principles and allowing space for cooperation with the opposition on major issues. This is one of the natural outcomes of a rational discourse: it reduces polarisation and opens avenues for national consensus.
In Qatar, political discourse has been shaped by alignment with the prevailing public sentiment, which carries an Arab-Islamic character. This has resulted in a calm and measured tone that has earned the state respect from both allies and adversaries. During the Gulf crisis, Qatar refrained from adopting a rhetoric of escalation or hostility, despite significant pressure, maintaining a disciplined, composed tone instead.
In the Sudanese context, although Abdel Fattah al-Burhan does not require populist rhetoric to consolidate his position—given the nature of the transitional phase and his de facto authority—such discourse remains present as an extension of a previous political legacy, forming part of the broader political culture.
Sudan today urgently needs a more rational political discourse, particularly given the complexities of the regional environment and the vigilance of adversaries. Any unguarded statement can be easily exploited and reframed to harm the country’s interests. Responsibility, therefore, also rests with public figures, including Dr Tareq Al-Hadi—especially now that he is outside the formal military structure—to adopt a more balanced discourse that contributes to shaping an informed public opinion, capable of distinguishing between fact and emotion.
On this basis, it is hoped that he can play a constructive role in helping to reformulate Sudan’s public discourse towards greater rationality and responsibility, fostering a more informed political engagement that strengthens shared national ground and reduces polarisation.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=12431