Moral Authority Begins with Consistency of Principle: A Response to Babiker Faisal’s Article, “The Five-Party Mechanism Is No Longer a Neutral Umbrella for the Political Process”

Gareeballah Al-Samani
In politics, people may disagree over positions and hold differing views on solutions. Yet what gives any political project its real strength is not the scale of the slogans it raises, but the consistency with which it applies the principles it advocates. Credibility is not produced by rhetoric; it arises from harmony between words and actions, and between the standards we demand of others and those we apply to ourselves.
From this perspective, the issue raised by Babiker Faisal in the article cited above deserves discussion because it concerns the neutrality of the political process and its independence from the parties to the war. The problem, however, does not lie in the principle itself, but in the way it was applied. The standard used to condemn one party was not applied when discussing the other, creating a contradiction that weakened the moral authority required by any political argument seeking to persuade before it condemns.
The author criticises the five-party mechanism because, in his view, it permitted the participation of groups he considers aligned with the Army. He regards this as a breach of neutrality and an act of bias towards one party to the conflict. At the same time, however, he presents the Tasis Alliance as one of the principal civilian actors that should take part in leading the political process, overlooking the fact that the alliance is headed by the commander of the Rapid Support Forces, one of the parties to the war, who has also announced the formation of a parallel government in the alliance’s name.
This raises the question the article failed to address: if a mere association with the Army is sufficient to deprive any group of its claim to neutrality, why is the same standard not applied to an alliance led by the commander of the Rapid Support Forces?
Neutrality is not a selective position. It is a principle that must be applied to everyone or it loses its meaning. It is not acceptable to reject one party because of its association with an armed force, while accepting another led by one of the principal commanders in the war and presenting it as a representative of civilian forces.
Likewise, the principle of Sudanese ownership of the political process does not mean that one political grouping should monopolise the definition of who is civilian and who is not, or grant legitimacy to one side while withholding it from another according to political preference. National ownership means inclusivity, fairness and equal standards—not the reproduction of exclusion under new slogans.
This double standard is not merely an error of political judgement; it strikes at the heart of credibility itself. The moral authority of any political project does not derive from the slogans it adopts, but from its consistency in applying its principles to everyone without exception.
Since the outbreak of the war, the Sumoud forces have raised the banners of neutrality, civilian rule and opposition to military domination of the political process. Yet their positions—particularly their dealings with the Tasis Alliance—have, in the eyes of many Sudanese, provided an example of the selective application of these principles. Association with an armed party is treated as disqualifying in one case, while overlooked in the other.
Sumoud has therefore not lost credibility simply because people disagree with it politically. It has lost credibility because it failed to apply to itself the principles it demanded that others observe. Credibility is built upon consistency of position, not upon the forcefulness of slogans.
When neutrality becomes selective, civilianism becomes selective, and opposition to the militarisation of politics becomes selective, political discourse loses its moral authority before it loses its political influence.
This contradiction was not a temporary position or an isolated political judgement. It has remained a recurring feature of Sumoud’s discourse since the outbreak of the war. The crisis confronting the alliance is therefore not one created by its opponents or by hostile media coverage. It is a crisis of credibility arising from the inconsistency between the principles it proclaimed and the positions it adopted.
Restoring that credibility will not be achieved by blaming mediators or other parties. It requires self-examination and commitment to a single principle applied equally to everyone. Principles that are not applied consistently lose their value, and politics that loses its moral authority cannot preserve its political influence for long.
Sudan today does not need one form of bias to be replaced by another, nor does it need the category of “civilian forces” to be redefined according to proximity to one armed party or another. It needs one standard applied to all without exception.
Anyone who leads a belligerent armed force cannot at the same time be presented as a representative of civilian actors in a process that is supposed to remain independent of the parties to the war.
Trust in any political project begins with consistency of principle. Unless the standards of neutrality and civilian rule are applied to all sides without exception, calls for an independent political process will continue to lack credibility. Sumoud will also continue to bear significant responsibility for this decline because of the contradiction between its slogans and its conduct.
Sudan will not emerge from its crisis through a political process governed by double standards, nor through the classification of civilian forces according to their proximity to one party or another.
Civilian rule is not a label granted to those we support and withdrawn from those with whom we disagree. Neutrality is not a weapon used against one side while another is exempted from it.
The road to peace begins with a simple and clear principle:
No political privilege for any party that relies upon armed force, and no political immunity for any military leader, regardless of position or affiliation.
Only when this principle is applied equally to everyone can there be a genuine political process capable of earning the confidence of the Sudanese people and laying the foundations for a just and sustainable peace.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=16682