Sudan: From Political to Strategic Dialogue

By: Ahmed Al-Tijani Al-Shaib

Sudan is going through a highly complex historical phase, in which the national crisis can no longer be addressed through traditional political means alone. The war that erupted on April 15, 2023, revealed the depth of the imbalances that had accumulated in the structure of the state, society, and the political system. It has demonstrated that the conflict was no longer merely a power struggle between political or military forces, but rather a complex crisis involving issues of the state, the army, identity, resources, social relations, regional and international interventions, and the future of national unity. Therefore, the transition from political dialogue to strategic dialogue is no longer an intellectual luxury, but a national necessity to redefine the Sudanese problem and search for sustainable ways out of it.

Since independence, Sudan has been preoccupied with repeated cycles of political dialogue, often convened in response to an immediate crisis or to resolve an existing conflict between political forces. Despite their importance, these dialogues have often remained captive to the question of “Who governs?” rather than addressing the deeper question of “How should Sudan be governed?” and “What kind of state do we want to build?” Consequently, agreements and compromises have repeatedly failed to address the root causes of the structural crisis, leaving the Sudanese state vulnerable to cycles of coups, wars, and fragile transitions.

Political dialogue, by its very nature, focuses on the distribution of power, transitional arrangements, political participation, and defining the roles of different forces within the institutions of government. Strategic dialogue, however, transcends this, aiming to build a shared vision of supreme national interests, the nature of the state, the system of government, the relationship between civilians and the military, the management of diversity, balanced development, national security, foreign relations, and the reconstruction of the economy and state institutions. Thus, the central question of strategic dialogue becomes: What national project can unite Sudanese people, regardless of their political and ideological differences?

The shift to strategic dialogue does not imply ignoring or eliminating political dialogue; politics remains one of the tools for managing society and the state. The aim is to place political dialogue within a broader national framework, ensuring that the competition for power does not become an end in itself, and that political settlements do not become mere temporary truces between elites. Sustainable peace requires consensus on the rules of the state and its institutions. Furthermore, democracy cannot be established without a national state capable of protecting the constitution and the rule of law, monopolizing the legitimate use of force, achieving justice, and providing essential services.

One of the most important issues that the strategic dialogue should address is the restructuring of the Sudanese state. The current crisis is not solely due to weak governments, but also to the weakness and politicization of national institutions, and the overlapping roles between the state and political, military, and societal forces. Therefore, rebuilding the state necessitates agreement on a state of citizenship and the rule of law, on professional military and security institutions subject to constitutional authority, on a democratic political system that guarantees the peaceful transfer of power, and on a federal or decentralized system that achieves greater justice in the distribution of power, wealth, opportunities, and responsibility.

The strategic dialogue should also place the issue of war and peace within a different framework. A ceasefire is an urgent necessity, but it alone does not constitute a solution to the crisis. What is required is addressing the root causes that made the war possible and preventing its future recurrence. This requires establishing clear security arrangements, restructuring security institutions, addressing issues of justice, accountability, and reconciliation, and reintegrating victims, internally displaced persons, and refugees into the state-building process, so that peace becomes a project for rebuilding society, not merely an agreement between armed groups.

The external factor is of particular importance in the strategic dialogue, as Sudan has become part of a broad network of regional and international interests linked to its geographic location, wealth, resources, maritime routes, and multiple borders. However, dealing with the outside world should not be based on isolation or dependence, but rather on an independent and realistic Sudanese foreign policy that prioritizes national interests, diversifies partnerships, and prevents Sudan from becoming an arena for proxy conflicts.

Likewise, political stability cannot be separated from the economic and social project. A state that fails to provide employment opportunities, services, and balanced development remains a breeding ground for conflict. Therefore, the strategic dialogue should address issues of agricultural and industrial production, resource management, reconstruction, civil service reform, combating corruption, developing education and healthcare, and redistributing development opportunities between the central government and the regions.

The required strategic dialogue is not another political conference, nor a platform for power-sharing, but rather a long-term national foundational process involving political, social, civil, and community forces, youth, women, and experts, with genuine representation from the various Sudanese regions and communities. This dialogue should culminate in a national reference document that defines the fundamental principles of the Sudanese state, its strategic objectives, the priorities of the transitional phase and beyond, and the mechanisms for their implementation and review.

In short, Sudan today needs to move from crisis management to building the future, from the question of power to the question of the state, and from temporary compromises to strategic agreements. Political dialogue can resolve a governmental crisis, but strategic dialogue should aim to resolve the crisis of the state. While political dialogue seeks a formula for coexistence among competing factions, strategic dialogue seeks a project that makes coexistence itself possible and sustainable.

Therefore, the shift from political dialogue to strategic dialogue represents an opportunity to redefine the Sudanese national contract on new foundations: a state of citizenship, the rule of law, and democracy. Constitutionalism, justice, balanced development, institutional professionalism of the armed forces, and independence in national decision-making. Sudan needs not only to end the war, but also to build a national system that prevents its recurrence. This is the historic task that the strategic dialogue must undertake.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=16941