The Face of Truth | Dr. Ibrahim Shaqlawi Dirty Hands… The Dilemma of Sudanese Political Parties
Politics is a moral test in which the true nature of slogans is revealed when they collide with interests. A politician may find himself facing difficult choices in which he believes that violating certain principles is necessary to achieve the public good. This is the dilemma of “dirty hands,” discussed by American political philosopher Michael Walzer. A decision-maker may be compelled to commit an act he considers necessary, yet he cannot hide behind necessity to evade his moral responsibility.
National interest is not an open-ended mandate, a noble end does not grant immunity to the means, and acknowledging the difficulty of a decision does not exempt its maker from accountability.
In our country, this dilemma has become a starting point for understanding the predicament of political parties that raised the slogans of the revolution but failed to transform them into a national project that transcends calculations of power. Since the fall of Omar al-Bashir’s regime in April 2019, it has become apparent that civilian forces agreed more on overthrowing the regime than on building the state.
They rallied behind freedom, peace, and justice, but failed to establish institutions that could regulate their differences, guarantee the independence of their decisions, and prevent revolutionary legitimacy from becoming a political privilege monopolized by certain elites, even within those parties themselves.
The problem was not merely weak coalition management. It also emerged in how participation and its limits were defined, as well as in the ambiguous relationship between domestic political calculations and regional and international influence. The experience of the Empowerment Removal Committee, the controversy surrounding guarantees of due process and the right to a defense, the Lawyers’ Draft Constitution, and subsequently the Framework Agreement raised important questions about the rules governing the transition and who has the right to shape them.
When political forces were excluded under the pretext of preventing the political process from being “overwhelmed,” it appeared that some elites regarded consensus as a right to choose partners and shape the country’s future, rather than a responsibility to build an inclusive national foundation representing all of Sudan.
Here, the parties’ predicament becomes clear: how can they defend democracy while restricting participation whenever it conflicts with their calculations? And how can they raise the banner of independent national decision-making without providing a clear account of the sources of influence over their decisions and the limits of their ties to external actors? This meant that the claim to ownership of the national project was a false one.
The standard is the transparency of decision-making, the fairness of the rules, and the ability of political parties to accept competition rather than redefine legitimacy in ways that guarantee their continued presence on the political scene.
The 2019 partnership was not immune to this flaw, as it lacked safeguards to subject centers of power to constitutional oversight. Then the April 2023 war exposed the cost, with citizens paying the price in their security, homes, and livelihoods. The responsibility of some political parties becomes even greater in light of testimonies and documents indicating their involvement in supporting the Rapid Support Forces’ coup against state institutions, exposing the contradiction between their democratic slogans and practices that undermine democracy—for the sake of power.
In this context, Transitional Sovereignty Council Decision No. 363 of 2026, concerning the dismissal of criminal complaints against participants in the Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue, places the concept of “dirty hands” under direct scrutiny. Creating a conducive environment for dialogue may be a national necessity, and removing obstacles to participation may be a necessary step. But who determines the limits of the exception? Are complaints to be dealt with according to legal standards, or according to the identity of those who benefit and their position within the new balance of power?
The dismissal of complaints should not become a settlement of political scores at the expense of justice. There is a difference between protecting political activity from prosecution and obstructing accountability or undermining victims’ rights. The legitimacy of the decision depends on its legal basis, its implementation, and the distinction between complaints that obstruct participation and crimes that warrant accountability. Therefore, raising the banner of dialogue is not enough to make every measure legitimate. A state that protects dialogue by obstructing justice may gain seats around the table, but lose the trust of those outside it.
Sudanese dialogue will derive its value neither from the number of participating forces nor from the committee’s ability to bring opposing parties together, but from the participants’ willingness to review the experience that led the country into war. What is needed is a political compact that places weapons under state authority, guarantees rights, participation, and the peaceful transfer of power, and gives young people, women, displaced persons, and refugees a genuine place in shaping the future. Anything less, in my view, is nothing more than a reshuffling under another disgraceful label.
According to #The_Face_of_Truth, the predicament of Sudanese political parties is not that they were forced to make difficult choices, but that they failed to establish clear boundaries between necessity and interest, between compromise and capitulation, and between legitimacy and monopolizing decision-making. Anyone who demands that others respect the law must accept its constraints when they stand to benefit from circumventing it. The revolution must not become a deed of ownership for political parties, war must not become a justification for suspending justice, and dialogue must not become a means of escaping accountability. Sudan does not need hands that justify their dirt in the name of the nation, but rather political forces that understand that state-building begins when they stop placing their interests above the law, allowing the nation to become greater than its parties and justice stronger than their settlements.
May you remain in good health and well-being.
Tuesday, 20 October 2026
Shglawi55@gmail.com