The State and Racism: A Confrontation, Not an Escape

By Yasser Mahjoub Al-Hussein

It is sometimes promoted that the optimal solution to Sudan’s crises is the division of the country into culturally and socially “homogeneous” states, under the claim that diversity is a burden rather than a strength. This notion—despite its superficial logic—is nothing more than a forward escape and a clear failure to address the roots of the crisis and to reform the state. It is a discourse that appeals to anger, but fails to touch the core of the problem. Unity is not built on wishes; it is founded on the pillars of a strong central state, its security and military institutions, and the rule of law for all.

The talk of the need for a “homogeneous state” is a delusion unsupported by human experience. India, despite its religious and linguistic diversity, has endured; Russia, with its ethnic complexity, remains united; and the United States, with its immigrant heart, governs the world. Even Ethiopia, despite its recurring conflicts, has remained notably cohesive. Diversity only turns into a curse when a just state is absent—one that institutionalizes pluralism and guarantees equality.

Let us ask candidly: what has Sudan—both North and South—gained from the secession of South Sudan? Has the situation improved in the newborn state? Or has it grown more complicated? The truth is that the dream of homogeneity that was promoted did not lead to stability, but rather to harsher conflicts. Even Southerners themselves recognize that secession did not meet their aspirations; it only deepened the challenges. So, are we to repeat the same mistake in other regions of the country?

Indeed, racism poses an imminent threat. It is a ticking time bomb that endangers any national project. But it will not disappear through partition; racism knows no borders. It can infiltrate even the most homogeneous societies—within the same tribe, and even within the same family. Therefore, any talk of “ethnic salvation” through separation is mere fantasy. The only solution lies in confronting racism in all its forms—through security, educational, cultural, and religious institutions. Ignoring it under the pretext of “stability” only entrenches a flawed reality. The right path is honest confrontation, serious reform, and the building of a state that treats all its citizens equally.

Some political actors feed the discourse of fragmentation, relying on historical grievances—as if state-building can be achieved by cutting out the past with scissors, not through institutions. But states are not built on bitterness; they are founded on the principles of citizenship, the values of justice, and the will to reform. What is required is not the dismantling of Sudan in pursuit of an imagined ethnic purity, but the reform of state institutions and the drafting of a new social contract that brings justice to all.

Regrettably, some intellectual elites have begun to promote division as if it were the only realistic solution—forgetting that simplifying problems does not solve them; it worsens them. Where is the responsibility of intellectuals in preserving the unity of the nation? It is their duty to lead the project of just unity, not to justify partition in the name of realism or historical grievance.

Yes, racism exists, and marginalization is a reality—from North to South, and from East to West. But fleeing the homeland will not create new ones; it will only produce fresh wounds. The path begins with acknowledging the crisis, but it does not end with self-flagellation or proposing the guillotine. It passes through building a state that respects diversity, combats racism, and restores trust among its components—without compromising justice or abandoning national unity. Let us step out of the denial party, and begin a workshop of construction, not one of division.