The National Project as a Brain State   (Why Our Parties’ Projects Are Dependent)   Captain Mohamed Hassan Al-Tahir 

Date: May 25, 2026

The national project is a comprehensive vision that seeks to build a state with independent will, cohesive structure, preserving the dignity of its citizens and shaping the future of its generations in harmony with the movement of history, not against it.

The national project is not merely a political program, but rather:

– An intellectual, cultural, and economic immunity against external infiltration, and a guarantee of national decision-making sovereignty.

From this definition, and from the meaning of “given” as a brain state, the following question arises:

Do the names of our parties reflect genuine development or dependency?

Looking at the names of Sudanese parties, we find they are often tied to external references or imported slogans. This connection does not reflect internal growth or national development, but rather reveals dependency on global or regional projects (whose ineffectiveness in positively influencing internal crises has been evident, and instead their negative impact has appeared). This has distanced them from authentically expressing Sudan’s identity, weakening it, and leaving it vulnerable. Hence arises the question:

– The homeland as a project between immunity and infiltration.

Clearly, the homeland is a living project, and this project is either:

– Protected by independent thought and strong institutions,

– Or infiltrated through parties that import their ideas from abroad.

Here comes the concept of immunity as protection against the fragmentation of the homeland and as a safeguard against the “childhood diseases” of national infancy. Immunity means that parties must emerge from Sudan’s reality, while infiltration means they become tools for implementing non-Sudanese agendas. This has clung to them through the founding narratives of Sudan’s late national infancy, which has not yet matured enough to wean itself from old narratives by innovating new ones that reflect the maturity of the citizen in pursuing his interests and clarifying his vision of the homeland through objective reality, not dreams based on one-sided love—Sudanese love everyone, yet no one loves them.

This is evident when studying the history of Sudanese parties:

– Muslim Brotherhood:

  Tied to the global organization, making their project part of a transnational movement rather than a Sudanese one.

– National Unionist Party:

  Became the Democratic Unionist Party, remaining linked to the idea of union with Egypt, which weakened its independence.

– Umma Party:

  Raised the slogan “Sudan for Sudanese,” but soon leaned toward compromise with Egyptians, weakening its national clarity.

– Communist Party:

  Torn between American capitalism and Russian socialism, with global communism linked to Judaism, distancing it from Sudan’s reality. In addition, its detachment from religion—“the opium of the people”—and its embrace of capital as “man’s beloved” further alienated it.

– Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party:

  Associated with Saddam Hussein and Michel Aflaq, reflecting the struggles of the Arab East more than Sudan’s reality.

From here, the true national project is one that balances intellectual immunity with healthy flexibility in engaging the world. Sudan must be able to protect itself from infiltration while remaining open to international cooperation without losing independence. This raises the next question:

– How can Sudanese reclaim their homeland and their dependent thought?

The answer lies in an objective study analyzing the national project as a brain state. Sudan must rebuild its own project:

– Through critical review of party history and slogans.

– By reconstructing political thought on a purely Sudanese basis rooted in lived reality.

– By overcoming dependency on foreign ideologies, politics, or economics.

– By making the Sudanese individual and his dignity the core of the national project.

This can only be achieved by answering a fundamental question:

– How must parties change for a national project?

Answering this is difficult, especially after the “geriatric” ideas of these parties, swinging between passion and illusion, diverging from reality and inspiration. Their entrenched presence in public consciousness and media requires a painful but necessary weaning process based on:

– Changing names and slogans to emerge from Sudanese reality, not foreign sources.

– Reformulating political thought to express Sudanese aspirations, not others’ agendas.

– Building a national project that preserves Sudanese dignity and defines the future of its generations in line with history.

– Transforming parties from tools of external conflict into tools of internal construction, with their efforts counted both in worldly achievements and in the balance of the hereafter—like points in a football league, for both this world and the next. Politics is not for ascetics, and if they exist, they are few.

Conclusion:

Sudan will not rise except through an independent national project that severs ties with foreign dependency and restores parties to their natural role (rooted in the essence of immunity) as tools for expressing the people, their interests, and their rights—not the agendas of foreign powers, whether right or left.

The national project is the sole guarantee of Sudan’s immunity, the preservation of its citizens’ dignity, and the shaping of its generations’ future in harmony with the movement of history.