Customs Dollars and Dual Realities: A Global History of Why States Create Multiple Economic Truths

By Adel Al-Rifai Abu Alhassan
Wars may, at first glance, appear to bring nothing but destruction and loss. Yet throughout history they have sometimes served as pivotal moments of national reflection, exposing structural weaknesses and compelling nations to reconsider the paths they have taken. Countries that emerge stronger from major crises are not merely those that rebuild what has been destroyed, but those with the courage to confront the root causes of their problems and resolve issues that have been postponed for decades.
One of Sudan’s greatest long-standing challenges has been its culture of deferring crises. We have grown accustomed to addressing problems through temporary solutions, managing the consequences rather than tackling the underlying causes. As a result, economic, political, social and administrative issues have accumulated over time, passing from one phase to the next and from one generation to another.
The gravest danger facing any state is not the existence of problems—every country has them. The real danger arises when those problems become embedded within the system itself, and society grows so accustomed to them that they come to be regarded as normal.
The customs dollar provides a clear example of this phenomenon. How can a single country operate with more than one exchange rate for the US dollar? How can it be considered acceptable to have one rate for customs transactions and another for the market? The mere continuation of such an arrangement amounts to an implicit acknowledgement that two separate economic realities exist within the same state.
Nor does the problem stop with the dollar. It has spread into the daily lives of ordinary citizens, to the point where a common question has become: “Is this calculated in the old Sudanese pound or the new one?” Although simple on the surface, this everyday expression reveals the extent of the confusion created by the coexistence of multiple concepts and competing points of reference.
A country seeking to rebuild cannot function with more than one language or more than one standard. National unity begins with a unified frame of reference: one exchange rate, one definition, one procedure and one clear set of rules understood by citizens, investors and institutions alike. Multiple reference points erode confidence, increase the cost of doing business, and create fertile ground for disorder and corruption.
For many years, Sudan has concentrated on dealing with immediate crises while leaving the underlying issues unresolved. I recall how, in previous years, we would follow news of the Minister of Finance returning from meetings of the Paris Club, with the successful rescheduling of Sudan’s debt presented as a major achievement. Yet the structural causes of the country’s economic problems remained untouched, only for the crises to re-emerge in different forms.
The issue does not lie with any particular government or political period. Rather, it reflects a recurring pattern of thinking and governance—a tendency to postpone difficult decisions and pass the cost of inaction on to future generations.
Today, after everything Sudan has endured, history demands that this moment be seized to rebuild the state on new foundations. This is not a time to recreate the past, but an opportunity to reassess it and correct its course.
What is required is a comprehensive confrontation with all the accumulated distortions that have persisted since independence—whether economic, political, social or administrative—and to place them all on the table for genuine reform rather than piecemeal treatment. Nations do not progress by concealing their problems; they advance by confronting them.
Unifying the exchange rate and ending the duality of policies and procedures is not simply an economic decision. It is a step towards restoring the authority of the state and the unity of its decision-making. A strong state is one that conveys the same message to all its citizens and applies the same rules equally to everyone.
The current administration therefore bears a responsibility that seldom arises: a historical, national and moral responsibility to both this generation and those to come. Major decisions require unwavering determination and political courage—an understanding that the cost of reform today is far lower than the cost of allowing the crisis to persist tomorrow.
The Sudanese people must also be partners in this process, rather than mere recipients of government decisions. Transparency, public engagement, and the mobilisation of the country’s economic, social and political energies are essential to building a national consensus around a genuine programme of recovery.
Sudan possesses the human and natural resources needed to achieve renewal. But progress must begin with removing the obstacles that have long impeded its development. Nations cannot build their future while carrying the unresolved burdens of the past.
Countries do not rise through an endless succession of temporary fixes. They rise through clear vision and courageous decision-making. A state that aspires to build a single future cannot continue creating more than one reality.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=16035