The Truth Perspective | Ibrahim Shaglawi Sudan… Dialogue Between the State and Power

It is clear that the country has begun preparing to enter a new phase of national dialogue, which has become one of the most important requirements of the political process. However, the value of dialogue is not measured merely by holding a conference or by the number of forces participating in it, but by its ability to produce national consensus, rebuild trust, and place the country before an important question: How can we disagree over power without disagreeing over the state?

Dialogue that comes after a war with such devastating consequences should not be a deal among elites, a settlement for the distribution of positions, or a reproduction of the equations that led the country to war. It must establish a political process based on the principle that the state belongs to the Sudanese people, that power is a function subject to peaceful transfer, and that political disagreement does not grant the right to use the state or weapons to eliminate opponents.

But the road to dialogue is fraught with an important question: Who participates, who is excluded, and according to what criterion? The dilemma is not in inclusion or exclusion, but in the reference that determines them. If exclusion becomes a political tool to eliminate opponents, the conflict will be reproduced; and if inclusion becomes a cover for overlooking crimes and violations, dialogue will lose its legitimacy. Therefore, the law must be the basis for participation and accountability, not the balance of power or political weight.

Therefore, a distinction must be made between the right to political participation and responsibility for crimes. Crime must not be granted immunity through politics, nor should criminal accountability become a tool for political exclusion. Participation should be regulated by political and constitutional rules, while crimes should be governed by law and the judiciary. When the two paths are confused, justice becomes politicized and dialogue is stripped of its substance, turning it into a means of settling scores with opponents rather than a means of ending the conflict.

Hence comes transitional justice as one of the conditions for peace, not an obstacle to it. Sudan cannot build its future on the principle of “let bygones be bygones,” nor can it remain hostage to revenge. What is required is justice that recognizes the violations suffered by victims, determines criminal responsibility, prevents impunity, and at the same time opens the way toward national reconciliation.

Pardon in public or private rights, where permitted by the nature of the crime and the law, can be a tool for building trust, but it should not turn into a political deal to close files and allegations, unless they are originally false allegations. Likewise, accountability should not become a means of excluding specific political currents.

Here we arrive at the greatest constant that should not be subject to negotiation: the Sudanese state.

The war revealed a truth obscured by polarization: the state is not power. The state is the land, the people, institutions, sovereignty, and law, while power is a temporary political administration that changes with circumstances. When power is confused with the state, criticizing the government becomes hostility toward the nation, and overthrowing power becomes an excuse to weaken the state. In both cases, our country pays the price.

The sacrifices of the martyrs came to place the state above political calculations. They did not die for power, a person, or a group, but in defense of a homeland, believing that the collapse of the state meant the collapse of everyone. Therefore, their blood remains a trust upon the living, and the greatest loyalty to them is to protect the state for which they gave their lives. Martyrdom does not grant anyone a permanent mandate to rule; rather, it imposes a historic responsibility: not to allow the state to become hostage once again to chaos and conflict. The heavier question remains: Are we capable of preserving the state for whose survival they sacrificed their lives?

Here begins the real dialogue between the state and power. Sudanese people have the right to disagree over governments, programs, and the system of government, and to compete over the management of the country. But the danger begins when the struggle for power turns into a struggle over the state. Governments can change without the state changing, alliances can shift without sovereignty changing, and a party in power can lose without the homeland losing. But when the state itself becomes a party to the conflict, politics turns into an existential threat.

Therefore, the desired consensus is not about individuals, but about the rules governing the transfer of power: national rather than partisan institutions, regular forces outside political polarization, an independent and fair judiciary, and weapons that are not a means of attaining or remaining in power.

Accordingly, excluding the National Congress Party or any political force from dialogue should not be a response to external pressure or balances of power, but rather based on a clear legal rule. Anyone proven to have committed a crime should be held accountable, whether as an individual or as an organization, in accordance with the law. Political disagreement, however, should not become a justification for collective exclusion. At the same time, participation must not become a cover for reproducing the war or undermining the state. The state does not protect crime, but neither does it punish through politics instead of law.

Dialogue is neither a reward for the victor nor a concession to the defeated. Rather, it is a test of everyone’s ability to abide by the rules of the state. True success does not lie in sharing power, but in building a state that accommodates its citizens, holds people accountable on the basis of law, and allows the peaceful transfer of power. Stability begins when the ballot box becomes the arbiter, not external pressure, balances of power, or the barrel of a gun.

According to #TheTruthPerspective, Sudan’s struggle is not about who rules, but about how the state survives. Power changes, but the state must remain above the conflict, the law above everyone, elections the path to power, and accountability the path to justice. The martyrs did not give their lives for power or a group, but in defense of a homeland; and the greatest loyalty to them is to protect the state from becoming the spoils of conflict.

May you remain in good health and well-being.

Monday, August 10, 2026Shglawi55@gmail.com