The Government… and the Misery of Its Discourse

By Dr. Amin Hassan Omar

We have already stated that speech alone does not constitute discourse; discourse manifests in words, silence, actions, and even in the refusal to act when action is expected. All of these are forms of expression and communication.

Journalists and media professionals have long wondered why the government does not appoint an official spokesperson to articulate its policies and announce its decisions. Why does it leave what it does — and what it refrains from doing — as open ground for speculation, interpretation, and rumors that are at times far-fetched and at other times malicious?

Perhaps the government believes that by speaking less, it can manage its affairs in secrecy. Yet what it fails to realize is that the matter, at its core, is not its own — it concerns the people, their will, and their destiny. The public will not accept that decisions affecting their concerns and anxieties be made behind closed doors, without their knowledge or participation.

Eventually, the government will be forced to speak — but only reactively: to deny, to correct, to clarify, or to protest against a false leak or inaccurate report. And so, it always arrives late to the story — and those who come last in the news will find little to laugh about.

A government so fond of speaking about “governance” should know that transparency and openness are the very essence of good governance. It means returning authority to its rightful owner — the people — and informing them. The government is merely their agent, not their representative. For even an elected government does not receive an unlimited mandate to act without consultation; how then can a de facto government, accepted by necessity, claim such a right?

There is a difference between representation and agency:

A representative acts freely on behalf of those he represents, without review.

An agent acts within the bounds of a specific mandate and under supervision.

Thus, no one should lecture us on governance while violating its first requirement — transparency and disclosure.

Whether knowingly or not, this government’s greatest weakness since its appointment has been the failure of its public discourse — speaking where it should act, and remaining silent where speech and clarity are needed. It is no surprise, then, that it constantly finds itself having to correct, deny, or clarify — always one step behind the narrative, rather than leading public opinion.

Our wise government must realize that silence does not serve when it comes to issues that touch the public’s deepest concerns. It must articulate clear policies in advance, for governments exist to formulate and declare policies and decisions. Matters as crucial as war and peace cannot be left to speculation and guessing.

It is astonishing, for instance, that we hear of a “roadmap” submitted to the United Nations — yet the Sudanese people have never seen it published, learning only fragments of it here and there. This, while the central issue at stake is war and peace — a matter of national survival. Meanwhile, the public knows far more about the so-called “Quartet” of intrusive mediators, who have imposed themselves as arbiters with their own conditions and “red lines.”

I have never heard of a coercive mediator — one who dictates terms and sets boundaries. In the face of this, our government must adopt a clear and firm stance: affirming what is already well known — that we are open to dialogue and negotiation, but we will not accept any mediator we did not choose, nor one who comes with preconditions.

The government must also issue a formal, public policy on peace and reconciliation efforts — a policy adopted by the Sovereignty Council in a document with legislative weight. It should reaffirm what the military leadership has repeatedly emphasized, define the conditions and contexts for any talks, and clearly draw the government’s own red lines.

How could it be otherwise, when outside actors have already drawn their red lines — determining the nature of the transitional government, insisting on excluding the military from power, and dictating who should or should not be part of the process?

O our wise government — we, the people, stand by you. You are our plank of salvation in stormy seas, just as we are yours, if only you realize it. We hold you in good faith — so act well, that our trust may grow stronger and doubts may vanish.

And God alone is the helper and the source of strength in all grave matters.