The Face of Truth | Ibrahim Shglawi The National Congress Party: From Isolation to Return

Away from the binary of being for or against, the National Congress Party’s move in Paris appears worthy of political analysis. A party delegation, recently led by the Head of External Relations, Eng. Tariq Hamza, met with officials at the French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, including the Director for Africa and the Indian Ocean and the French Special Envoy to Sudan, to discuss developments in the country, support for peace, and to present the party’s vision for the next phase.

The timing of the meeting gives it important significance. It comes as the Sudanese political landscape moves toward reopening the political process and contacts intensify around the Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue. This is taking place at a time when the African Union has welcomed the initiative and called for its expansion to include political, civil, and societal forces, while the Dialogue Preparatory Committee has begun its contacts with the various parties, alongside the movement of the international Quintet mechanism within Khartoum to consult with Sudanese stakeholders.

Accordingly, the National Congress Party’s move acquires its political dimension. The party, which for years remained in a state of dormancy outside the sphere of active political engagement after being overthrown by the December Revolution of 2019, following three decades of governing the country, appears to have begun moving to rebuild its position within the political landscape and prevent its exclusion from the political process now underway.

This is a point worth considering. According to its declared positions, the National Congress Party says that it does not seek to return to power through transitional arrangements or a political deal, but rather through elections, which represent the path to government. It presents itself as a political force awaiting the decision of the masses. Regardless of one’s position on this vision, it means that the party’s battle at this stage is not about reaching power, but rather about its right to be present within the political equation.

From this perspective, the external move can be understood as an attempt to regain its position before regaining its influence. The party, it seems, does not want to wait until the arrangements for the next phase are completed, only to discover that the political map has been drawn without it. Therefore, reopening channels of communication abroad may be part of an effort to redefine itself before regional and international actors as a political player with a vision, interests, constituencies, and experience, rather than merely the remnants of a former regime.

Perhaps more accurately, the outside world is not a gateway to returning to power, but rather a path toward restoring presence and political legitimacy. While the National Congress Party continues to affirm that its legitimacy derives from the people and the ballot box, the pragmatism of this stage is pushing it to break its isolation and open external channels. In this sense, Paris represents an indicator of repositioning and a transition from isolation to a sphere of political action and influence, and may be one step within a broader movement to engage with other capitals and actors in preparation for the next phase.

More importantly, the party does not enter this path without a reservoir of political and negotiating experience. While Sudanese differ over its record in government and its responsibility for the country’s crises, three decades of governing have accumulated within it considerable experience in negotiation and conflict management. More significantly, its governments did not hesitate, when the interests of negotiations required it, to draw upon international and regional expertise and mediation, from Naivasha and Abyei to Darfur and the Two Areas. This reveals that engagement with external actors has remained a pragmatic tool for providing technical expertise and opening pathways toward solutions, while political decision-making remained in the hands of the Sudanese parties.

This experience does not grant the party a certificate of political innocence, nor does it mean that its previous experience should be reproduced. However, it represents a negotiating asset that cannot be ignored if the forthcoming dialogue is genuinely seeking to understand all components of the crisis and the experiences surrounding it. Experience is one thing, and legitimacy is another. Experience can be heard and discussed, while political legitimacy is determined by law and the will of the citizens.

Here, an important issue for the country’s future emerges: should the political process be built on prior exclusion, or on legal standards that apply to everyone? The weight of the National Congress Party’s legacy does not erase questions of responsibility, nor should dialogue become a cover for bypassing them. Yet turning exclusion into a rule outside the framework of the law does not create democracy. The fair standard is a set of rules governing both participation and accountability.

Here, three matters that are often confused in Sudanese political discourse must be separated: political participation, legal accountability, and access to power. Participation does not mean exoneration, accountability does not necessarily mean political execution, and participation in elections does not guarantee victory. It is wrong to turn dialogue into a political courtroom, just as it is wrong to use dialogue to undermine the right to justice.

If the National Congress Party wants to return, it must complete its review of its experience and unite its ranks before demanding its place. Return cannot be achieved by restoring the past, but by transforming from a party that was associated with the state into a party that competes within it, submits to criticism and accountability, and speaks to new generations. Conversely, it should not be excluded except according to the standards of law and the constitution, not the will of its opponents. Here lies the test of dialogue: either the reproduction of an elite conflict, or the establishment of justice whose outcome is determined through elections and the confidence of the people.

From this perspective, the National Congress Party’s movement in Paris appears to be an effort to influence the rules of the next phase and consolidate its political presence, rather than waiting for a path back to power. Its battle today is to regain its place in the political arena through a new discourse, a review of its experience, and acceptance of open competition and the judgment of the ballot box. Return is not granted by the past, nor is it created by settlements; it is decided by politics: weapons belong to the state, politics to dialogue and elections, crimes to justice, and the decision to the people.

According to #The_Face_of_Truth, what is taking place is not so much a return to power as it is a gradual emergence from isolation and a repositioning within the political landscape. Yet genuine return will not be created by foreign relations or organizational experience, but by the ability to present a project for the future and compete for the trust of the people. The question is no longer: Has the National Congress Party returned? Rather, can it return to politics without taking Sudan back to the past? Here lies the real battle in post-war Sudan.

Wishing you continued well-being.

Wednesday, 9 September 2026

Shglawi55@gmail.com