The Illusion of Privilege and the Reality of Marginalisation… Were the Northern Elites an Adversary to Their Own People?

Dr. Al-Haitham Al-Kindi Youssef
I have received a number of questions and fallacies regarding my previous article (‘Critique of the Manufactured State and the Labyrinth of Elites’) and its extension concerning the transition from the ‘State of Booty’ to the ‘State of Value’ through structural surgery. Perhaps the most prominent of these questions centre on the concept of ‘marginalisation’, with some accusing me of bias against the centre, arguing that successive governments never actually had anything to give, and that hardship and destitution are the common lot of all parts of Sudan, including the North, which some see as privileged over others. This necessitates this clarification.
When I spoke of marginalisation, I was not referring to one geographical region to the exclusion of others; rather, I spoke of a system of governance that failed to meet the aspirations of citizens across all peripheries. The suffering of the people of the North – cramped living conditions and a harsh environment – is no less severe than that of others. The truth that must be told is that any relative improvement in living standards in some areas of the North did not come from the ‘centre’ but was due to early emigration imposed by geography close to neighbouring countries, and thanks to the self-effort of citizens who built schools and hospitals from their own money (regional associations and unions), not from the state budget.
Here, it can be noted that the elites who ruled Sudan, who were from the North, did not represent the aspirations of the Northern people. They represented the culture of the centre. These elites derived their legitimacy from ideology (whether left or right), not from a mandate based on their regional affiliation. This explains why the villages of the North lacked clean drinking water and electricity for decades, despite being situated on the banks of the Nile. The people of the North paid the price of an illusory privilege without tasting the fruits of genuine development.
The North (despite its elites being in power) suffers from the highest rates of internal and external migration (expatriation), which explains its meagre economic resources. Even after the gold resource emerged, from which the entire population of Sudan benefited through what is known as artisanal mining, the North received nothing but environmental destruction and diseases caused by the mining materials.
Here, I can draw from Sudanese societal customs. The eldest son in a family (the firstborn) is seen by his younger siblings as the one controlling resources and decision-making. At the same time, he may have left school to help his father provide a decent life and educational opportunities for his younger siblings – opportunities he denied himself. This is precisely the situation of the North relative to the rest of Sudan’s regions.
The fact that the people of the North did not take up arms was not evidence of the absence of marginalisation; rather, it was an expression of the patience and endurance for which they are known, and of the peacefulness for which they are famous, while they employed different (soft) tools of struggle. Meanwhile, other elites in other regions exploited this marginalisation as a ‘cloak’ to pressure the centre and achieve personal agendas, only to practice, when they reached power, the same exclusionary approach they had risen up against.
The structural prescription I presented in my previous article is not for one group or one specific region; it is a project for national salvation that benefits everyone. The most important elements were attention to the economy and the investment of resources. When each region benefits from its resources (the Nile and gold of the North, the wealth of the West, the ports of the East, the agriculture of the Centre), we will move from conflict over the ‘crumbs from the centre’ to the ‘breadth of production’.
It also recommended reforming the state by unifying the armed forces, reforming the civil service, establishing genuine federalism, and ensuring the rule of law as a guarantee for equal citizenship.
It also called for the importance of reconciliation and truth as the bridge to mend the social fabric and remove the sediments of hatred and rancour sown by years of ethnic incitement.
The liberation of Sudanese consciousness begins with acknowledging that marginalisation is the common enemy. Doing justice to the people of the North does not mean alienating the rest of the regions, but rather building an institutional state that treats citizens not according to their proximity to the palace, but according to their contributions in the field, the factory, and the laboratory.
The War of Dignity is the end of the era of blackmail. Our country today is passing through a historic turning point aimed at tearing it apart through investment in ethnic differences. So the battle the Sudanese people are fighting today is an opportunity to silence separatist voices with logic, not with force. The era in which the homeland is blackmailed with arguments of marginalisation to push through a racist or ideological agenda is over.
Our goal is to build a state worthy of its people, a state run for the benefit of all, not for the benefit of the elite. The prescription I have put forward is the path towards a future where the son of the North feels no injustice, nor the son of the West any exclusion, but where all are fused into the crucible of citizenship, united by institutions, not by elites.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=12953