Face of the Truth | Ibrahim Shaglawi The State Is Not Governed by Pleadings

In his article published on Thursday under the title, “Clearly Stated: We Are Ministers Who Are Not Intimidated by Discordant Voices,” Minister of Culture and Information Khalid Al-Aiser defended the government’s performance, relying on historical accumulations and the repercussions of the war, while calling for criticism based on facts rather than defamation.

Yet, the significance of the article goes beyond responding to his critics and raises the more important question: How should the state be governed in the post-war period? The issue is not about justification, but about building trust between a government measured by its achievements, a media that exercises its professional oversight, and a state that restores its citizens’ confidence through transparency.

There is no dispute that the current government inherited a state burdened by failures accumulated over decades, and then the war came to increase the burden and drain the state’s institutions and resources. One year is also not enough to remedy these challenges. However, this reality cannot become a permanent defensive narrative. People do not judge governments by what they inherited, but by their ability to transform crises into opportunities for recovery, and plans into tangible results that citizens can feel in their livelihoods and essential services.

Acknowledging the difficulty of the current reality is the first step. The next step is to present a clear recovery project with measurable objectives, announced timelines, and periodic reports that inform the public of what has been achieved, what has faltered, and why. A government that asks its people for patience is equally obliged to grant them the right to know.

The current phase requires a shift from a policy of reacting to events to a policy of managing expectations. Rather than being preoccupied with responding to campaigns, ministries would be better served by building public trust through transparency, publishing performance indicators, and making information available, because genuine achievement is the most convincing response to any criticism.

What our country faces today is not merely a passage from war to peace, but a transition from a state weighed down by crisis management to one that restores the logic of institutions.

A vigilant state is not measured by its ability to explain its failures, but by its ability to transform challenges into opportunities and policies into results. Therefore, the essence of the struggle is not between a government and an opposition, or between a minister and a journalist, but between two cultures of governance: one that searches for justifications, and another that makes performance the standard of governance.

Accordingly, the strongest response to criticism is not defending the existing reality or speaking about the readiness of ministers to leave office, but rather demonstrating change, reassurance, and planning.

 Achievement is the strongest argument, and

 transparency is the shortest path to restoring trust. What

is required today is not merely explaining what has happened, but proving the ability to create a new reality.

In this context, the importance of what the Prime Minister announced upon forming the government regarding subjecting ministers to performance measurement and continuous evaluation becomes evident. It was an announcement of a transformation in the philosophy of state administration, one that was welcomed by the public, based on the principle that public office is a responsibility, not a privilege, and that remaining in office depends on the impact one achieves. Therefore, the government was not given a blank cheque; rather, it was granted an opportunity conditioned upon results. One year after its formation, honoring this commitment requires moving from declaring the principle to implementing it through publicly announced performance indicators, periodic reports, and transparent reviews that make citizens partners in evaluating performance, while ensuring that renewal or dismissal becomes a decision governed by competence and achievement, not by the noise of impressions.

The political capital of any government is not built through rhetoric, but through its ability to generate trust by acknowledging challenges, presenting a clear vision, and transforming promises into policies and results. Transparency is not a burden on authority; it is the measure of its maturity and the source of its legitimacy.

 Meanwhile, the press remains a partner in protecting public awareness, especially in the absence of a legislative council. However, its oversight role loses its value when it turns into vilification or premature condemnation. Genuine accountability does not weaken institutions; it reforms them. The prestige of the state does not mean shielding officials from criticism, but protecting institutions from becoming hostage to sensationalism or individuals.

At the same time, the government bears its own responsibility. The media cannot be expected to act professionally in the absence of information. Protecting state institutions is not achieved by lowering the ceiling of criticism, but by raising the ceiling of transparency, because the flow of information and efficient performance transform criticism from impressions into facts and reduce the space for rumors. Just as the authorities have no right to suppress criticism, the media has no monopoly over the truth. Public opinion is built on evidence, not on the loudest voice. Therefore, Sudan needs a new institutional compact between the state and the media, in which the government commits to transparency and accountability, while the media exercises its oversight role with accuracy, fairness, and responsibility, far from defamation.

According to #Face_of_the_Truth, states do not collapse because a journalist criticized a minister, nor do they recover because an official wrote a defensive plea. They collapse when argument replaces action, and they rise when achievement becomes the foundation of governance, accountability becomes a culture, and transparency becomes the guiding principle of the relationship between the ruler and the citizen. When performance becomes the standard for an official’s continuity in office, professionalism the standard of a strong press, and respect for institutions the standard of political maturity, then our country will have begun its transition from the era of pleadings to the state of institutions, which derives its continuity from its results rather than its speeches.

Wishing you continued health and well-being.

Saturday, July 18, 2026

Shglawi55@gmail.com