The Face of Truth | Ibrahim Shaglawi Between Zarathustra and Kamil Idris’s Government…

At a time when economic decisions appear to be attempts to contain the repercussions of war, the Sudanese government announced a ban on the import of 46 different goods. The step was presented as part of a policy to rationalize imports, support local production, and curb pressure on foreign currency.

Yet what appears to be an economic measure transforms, from another angle, into a more pressing political and social question: are we facing an attempt to regulate the market, or a test of the relationship between the state and society?

Among the details of the decision—which included everyday consumer goods such as certain food products, extending to luxury items people have grown accustomed to—it becomes evident that the matter is not merely about trade balance calculations or managing demand for the dollar. Rather, it is about redefining what is “necessary” and what is “secondary” in the life of a society that has long lived under the poverty line and under complex economic and living pressures. Here, politics begins to move beyond analysis and enters the realm of human behavior.

From this perspective, the economic decision is no longer just a procedural text; it becomes an implicit message to society about how to live, what to forgo, and what to rearrange within the hierarchy of needs. However, this message is not always received as it is sent. Society does not passively receive policies; rather, it reinterprets them according to its experience with the state, the market, and a history of crises.

Here, Nietzsche’s philosophy is invoked through his book “Thus Spoke Zarathustra.” The issue is not so much about the authority of the decision as it is about the authority of the values that govern behavior. In a world where people lose confidence in the stability of standards, decisions alone can no longer shape reality unless they touch something greater: the system of trust and reassurance.

In the Sudanese context, the dollar is no longer merely a currency; it has become an expression of lost certainty and a collective desire to seek refuge from the volatility of life and livelihood.

From this angle, the ban can be understood as an attempt to recalibrate the rhythm between society and the state. The problem, however, is that economic behavior responds less to commands than to incentives and expectations. If citizens feel the future is more uncertain, their behavior will naturally shift toward precaution rather than compliance. If traders feel that rules are open to circumvention, the market will move beyond these measures.

Herein lies the paradox: the state seeks to reduce demand for foreign currency by limiting imports, while anxiety may drive an increased demand for the dollar as a safe haven. Thus, the decision becomes part of a psychological equation as much as an economic one, where trust plays a role no less important than monetary policy.

Therefore, the decision reveals a broader tension between two logics: the logic of the state, which seeks to impose order through urgent regulatory tools, and the logic of a society that reproduces its behavior through complex networks of need, experience, and expectation. Between these two logics, the clash does not occur in official procedures, but in everyday markets where decisions are tested at the moment of application, not at the moment of announcement.

The most dangerous aspect of such policies lies in what they reveal about the limits of the state’s economic action. A ban may temporarily succeed in easing pressure on foreign currency, but it does not address the root causes of the problem if the production system remains weak, trust fragile, and local alternatives unable to fill the gap. In such a case, the decision shifts from being a reform tool to a measure that tests society’s patience more than it changes economic reality.

In this context, the title “Between Zarathustra and Kamil Idris’s Government… as if the state is testing society’s behavior” becomes not merely a phrase but a description of a deep-seated condition: a state attempting to reshape behavior and the market through economic policy, and a society re-testing the state through its daily responses to these sudden policies. Between these two tests, the distance between the decision and its effectiveness is determined.

According to #The_Face_of_Truth, the decision to ban the import of 46 goods does not appear to be merely an economic measure, but rather a true test of the state’s ability to transform its decisions into trust among its citizens—not into further anxiety and disillusionment—and to make the market a partner in stability rather than a space for reproducing disorder and chaos.

What people are waiting for today, in addressing the repercussions of war, is neither stricter bans nor an expansion of lists, but clarity of vision, fairness in implementation, and real alternatives that make choice possible rather than imposed. Only then can the decision transform from a restrictive procedural text into a tangible impact that people can live and feel.

Wishing you continued health and well-being.

Wednesday, April 29, 2026

Shglawi55@gmail.com