Ahmed Haroun: Years of Absence and Hours of Candid Revelation…!

Diaa El-Din Bilal

1

Ahmed Haroun’s appearance in an interview lasting more than three hours on the podcast hosted by the astute media professional Rabie Siraj represents a significant journalistic scoop, for which Rabie deserves praise and appreciation.

This is not merely because he succeeded in hosting a figure who had remained away from the spotlight and media platforms for a long time, but also because he provided an opportunity to hear about a controversial political and administrative experience, rich in details, milestones, and positions.

2

Over the course of my more than twenty years in journalism, I have met many political leaders from different backgrounds and ideological orientations. I have developed close relationships with some of them and gained insight into their experiences and personalities. This has given me the opportunity to understand their true character and distinguish between their public image in the media and who they really are.

In Professor Ahmed Haroun, particularly during his tenure as governor of both South and North Kordofan, I found a man remarkably humble in his dealings with others, profound in his understanding, widely read, intellectually curious, eloquent in expressing his ideas and positions, and courageous in confronting challenges. He was never reluctant to venture into difficult terrain or hesitate to take on demanding assignments.

Perhaps it would be fair to say that the Salvation Regime, during its thirty years in power, wronged this man in its own particular way!

Whenever a crisis erupted, a problem became intractable, or someone was needed to venture into dangerous territory, he was sent to the hottest and most complicated front lines.

And when the regime’s political fortunes deteriorated, its popularity fell to its lowest levels, and its crises reached a point of near paralysis, it remembered him and chose him to lead its party!

It was as though it wanted him to serve as a physician in the intensive care unit after the disease had become resistant to treatment, medical intervention had come too late, and the patient was on the verge of death!

3

When war broke out in Sudan and its flames spread to cities and villages, while foreign agendas became intertwined in the conflict and many Islamist leaders and others left the country, Haroun chose to remain inside Sudan alongside a small group of his comrades, despite the dangers and extremely complicated security conditions.

He did not limit himself to public statements and passionate declarations issued from beyond the country’s borders. Instead, he continued urging young people from his political constituency to take part in defending the country, accepting the consequences and risks associated with his position.

In my assessment, this conduct is consistent with the character of the man I came to know at close quarters: someone inclined toward action rather than words, and toward confronting challenges rather than seeking refuge in safe distances.

4

The late Dr. Mansour Khalid, renowned for his uncompromising critical approach and his political and intellectual distance from the Salvation Regime, included in his memoirs a positive testimony about Ahmed Haroun. He spoke of Haroun’s open-mindedness and willingness to accept others, regardless of how far apart their positions might be or how different their perspectives.

Such testimony carries particular weight because it did not come from a political ally or someone with a vested interest, but from a man known for his independent judgment and sharp criticism.

During the years when negotiations between the Sudanese government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement–North (SPLM-N) repeatedly stalled in Addis Ababa, Yasser Arman used to tell journalists:

“If they brought us Ahmed Haroun, we would reach an agreement.”

This is another testimony from a political adversary, confirming that Haroun possessed a rare ability to build bridges and open channels of understanding, even with those whose positions differed most sharply from his own.

5

His experience in state-level governance deserves to be studied and evaluated away from political rivalries and preconceived judgments.

Haroun left a clear mark in both South and North Kordofan. He succeeded in transforming executive work from a limited government activity into a broad-based community mobilization effort involving citizens from all walks of life.

For him, politics was not simply a matter of delivering speeches, making promises, or selling “Soviet-style” dreams bottled up in the jars of wishful thinking!

In his approach, politics meant visible action, completed projects, and tangible results that people could feel in the details of their daily lives.

Through the mobilization initiatives in North Kordofan, he tackled the chronic water crisis that had plagued the city of El Obeid for decades, working to increase supplies from both surface and groundwater sources in what became one of his most prominent development initiatives.

In the sporting arena, Kadugli and El Obeid witnessed the construction and rehabilitation of impressive sports facilities. Clubs from both cities gained promotion to the Premier League. They did not merely participate for the sake of appearances; they went on to compete with the country’s leading clubs, inflicting heavy four- and five-goal defeats on Al Hilal and Al Merrikh!

These achievements were not the product of financial resources alone. They were the outcome of an administrative approach built on mobilizing capabilities, inspiring determination, and involving the community in creating success.

During Haroun’s tenure, public service was not the exclusive preserve of officials and senior civil servants. Shoe-shine boys, tea ladies, and other ordinary citizens found their place in the mobilization initiatives and community campaigns.

Everyone was a partner in the work, and every individual had a role to play, however small or modest it might have seemed.

Perhaps comparing what was achieved during those years with the fate of some projects and facilities after his departure reveals that Sudan’s problem does not always lie in the scarcity of resources. More often, it lies in the absence of political will, weak management, and a lack of continuity.

6

When the Salvation Regime fell, having exhausted its opportunities for reform and renewal, and after failing in its final years to provide convincing answers to the questions raised by younger generations or practical solutions to its mounting crises, Haroun found himself, like other former regime leaders, facing accusations, investigations, and imprisonment.

No financial corruption or unlawful acquisition of wealth was established against him, even through politically motivated efforts to implicate him.

Praising the achievements made during his tenure does not amount to granting him a blanket political acquittal. Equally, disagreeing with the experience of the Salvation Regime does not require denying everything that was accomplished during its years in power.

One striking irony is that even behind the walls of Kober Prison, Haroun did not abandon his practical nature. He led an initiative to rehabilitate and beautify the prison, encompassing agricultural work, maintenance of facilities, and improvements to the internal environment.

It is as though the man cannot see a place in need of improvement without immediately thinking about how to improve it!

Nor can he encounter a crisis without looking for a way to address it!

His energy for giving never runs out, and his desire to achieve never fades, whether he is in a governor’s office, at the negotiating table, or even behind prison walls.

7

No one is required to agree with Ahmed Haroun’s political positions, embrace his ideological choices, or overlook the mistakes of the political experience of which he was one of its most prominent figures.

But it is unjust to allow political rivalry to become a veil that obscures a person’s virtues, or to treat party affiliation as sufficient grounds for denying competence and abandoning fairness.

Sudanese politics has long suffered from a mindset that sees nothing but flaws in opponents and nothing but virtues in allies. As a result, we have come to judge people by the standards of loyalty and hostility rather than by the criteria of competence and contribution.

Here lies one of the greatest afflictions of our political life: we do not merely disagree with individuals; at times, we seek to erase their virtues and deny their achievements, as though acknowledging an opponent’s competence were an act of betrayal or a surrender of principles!

The truth is that fairness does not require agreement, just as disagreement does not justify injustice.

Nations that do not know how to benefit from the capabilities of their citizens, regardless of their political affiliations, are condemned to start from scratch with every political change, destroying with one hand what they have built with the other.

In this time of devastation and destruction, Sudan desperately needs to learn how to hold people accountable for their mistakes without denying their virtues, and how to disagree with them politically without denying what they have contributed to their country.