Sudanese-Sudanese Dialogue is a Political Outlet for Resolving the Crisis

By: Ibrahim Al-Tayeb Al-Jilani

Those who call (no to war) agree to the (Sudanese-Sudanese) dialogue, whose main goal is to stop the war and reach a comprehensive settlement of the political crisis
Or will they hide behind unilateralism and individualism, which will not solve the Sudanese crisis, neither in the present nor in the future?
(1)
Great changes and major transformations witnessed in Sudanese politics and volatile situations that are almost rare cases that have similarities to the African continent, whether in neighboring Africa or in the west, east, and center of the continent (all of which suffered, as Sudan suffered, from political disputes, political instability, and armed conflicts) and are still suffering under the burden of The instability of its governance systems, the issue of political stability remains a basic entry point and a pivotal link to state building, and despite the intellectual elite’s belief in the necessity and inevitability of agreeing on a sustainable political system to achieve development, it has been still revolving since the sixties of the previous century around political disputes that have paralyzed the African state and made it reach the late stages of political dispute. It led it to armed conflicts that had ethnic and social extensions, something that has remained difficult for it to get out of until now.
Likewise, it comes to mind that the political situation of the countries of the continent requires more awareness and political action to reach the conditions that the continent enjoys, including a national consensus on governing systems for state administration and political stability that will lead to subsequent episodes of state building. When will Africa and Sudan, including them, be able to rise from their political stagnation? .
(2)
Many political initiatives for dialogue and political agreement were put forward during all Sudanese political eras, but they did not succeed in resolving the crisis in the country, and the Sudanese were unable to overcome their political differences and agree on a system of governance that contributes to getting the country out of the tunnel of fluctuations and cycles of decline down to the horizon of stability, governance, and the rule of law. ..
The Sudanese drama of political disagreement is full of scenes of sadness, misery, and the narrow political horizon of the parties and entities, which made it one of the longest episodes and scenes of political conflict, of rejection, violence, and brutality in not accepting the other and sitting with him at the same table for dialogue. Perhaps one of the least photographed and watched scenes in the political arena ever and throughout the different eras is a meeting scene. Sudanese political parties and their dialogue with each other to reach a political settlement. Perhaps one of the most famous scenes of a few political leaders meeting (the Round Table Conference),
The political dialogue of the May era with political parties, the National Consensus Agreement, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that stopped the Southern War, the longest African war, and the National Dialogue.
In the context of political alliances, we find that the Sudanese are among the most successful politicians in concluding tactical alliances, and the most famous of them in the political arena (Codcam Agreement, the Charter Front Alliance, the National Front Alliance, the National Rally Alliance, the Asmara Alliance, and others). One of the wonders of the Sudanese situation and its astonishment is that despite the ability The Sudanese made political alliances among themselves, but they were not able to complete the political journey to reach a political settlement, as they suffered abysmal failure in achieving the political agreement, until Dr. Mansour Khaled branded them (the Sudanese elite and an addiction to failure). We can say that Sudanese politicians always succeed in the political alliance while they are in opposition, and they fail while in opposition governance and authority over the political agreement, and this part I think is one of the main dilemmas that Sudanese politics has suffered from throughout its long history.
(3)
An initiative for the Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue is now being proposed in the political arena. Perhaps its most notable feature is that it is a purely Sudanese dialogue. It can succeed in making the breakthrough required of it if it finds sincere intention, sincere will, and firm determination. It represents a real opportunity that comes at a pivotal stage and an appropriate timing to sit down and come out with an agreement and a political settlement that demarcates features. An agreed upon vision that the people will rally around with sincere national consensus. Will the Sudanese exploit the opportunity and create the impossible of Sudanese politics, which has made the past and present unable to reach a political agreement that will make the people of Sudan happy and that future generations will enjoy?
(4)
By carefully reading the terms of the agreement and the differences between the political forces, we find that there is almost complete agreement that unites these forces on most of the items proposed for discussion. There is complete consensus on the rule of law, the democratic system of govermance, the army’s non-interference in politics, and the armed forces standing at the same distance from all parties and elections are the basis of the democratic process for assuming power, subordination of government by the executive branch to civil authority, guardianship over public funds, adoption of a federal system to govern the states, separation of powers, independence of the judiciary and prosecution, balanced foreign relations that are built on mutual interests and that take care of the interests of the nation, and attention to the economy, health and education, and attention to development issues. All of these issues and others have been agreed upon in general or in detail, and in their details they represent most of the dialogue items on which agreement is sought.
As for the fundamental points of disagreement, they are represented by the status of religion in the state, or what is called the relationship of religion to politics, and a wide dialogue was conducted about it in the comprehensive peace negotiations (it is worth writing about). It is also not one of the complex points that the interlocutors are unable to reach an agreement on.
The second issue that requires an effort from dialogue remains the issue of the country’s constitution, which the Sudanese have not succeeded in so far, and the issues of the constitution are among the fundamental and precise issues that need experts and specialists to work on to come up with a draft constitution that will satisfy and gain acceptance. Sudan has had constitutional experiences in its various eras (the 1973 and 2005 constitutions). And the Constitutional Document 2019) if specialists and experts work on it, they can come up with a draft constitution that will end the sterile controversy that has paralyzed Sudan for a long time..
(5)
One of the paradoxes of Sudanese politics is its ability to bring together opposites, and today’s scene embodies that. Yesterday’s enemies are today’s companions, and yesterday’s friend is today’s enemy (and the parties that were allied yesterday are at war today, and those who were at war yesterday are now allied). There is nothing impossible in the space of Sudanese politics. Are we witnessing a new reality created by politicians with their signature? A settlement that they will devote with the sweat of struggle, the toil of struggle, and the monuments of struggle, and they will water it as a refuge of great concessions and great sacrifices, so that its shadows will be long and lush, and the people will enjoy the shadow of its shady stability and the cool air of its sustainability. And for my life, if the Sudanese succeed in reaching this settlement and at such a sensitive time, it is a distinct paradox that generations will talk about.
13.05.2024