The Fundamental Changes of the Post-War Phase

By: Zain Al-Abidin Saleh Abdul Rahman

The war will serve as a historical turning point between two distinct phases in Sudan’s modern history and between two different mindsets. The first mindset has exhausted its potential, and any attempt to maintain it will be a form of regression, as it will find support only from a small group unable to adapt to the changes brought about by the war or to keep pace with the process of transformation. The second mindset, however, is new and different in its thinking and culture from the previous one. It recognizes that change cannot be achieved through the zero-sum conflict that some political forces pursued before the war, but rather through political dialogue that leads to national consensus. Dialogue is the effective tool to awaken rigid minds.

It is also well known that ideas are tools for change, but they alone cannot foster interaction and integration among the components of Sudanese society, create a shared national identity, or instill patriotic values in the younger generations. These are functions of culture, which has multiple tools and methods to convey its message. Intellectuals who believe in dialogue as an effective tool for communication among the components of society are the only ones capable of contributing positively after the war. On the other hand, those who cling to slogans of rejection and impose conditions are stagnant forces incapable of contributing to the process of reconstruction and development.

The numerous questions raised in the magazines Al-Fajr and Al-Nahda in the 1930s, which the political elite failed to answer, were carried over to the 1960s to be addressed in the cultural sphere with its various components. However, politicians did not give intellectuals the opportunity to complete their projects, closing off the media and communication platforms in their faces. The political elite also failed to answer these questions during different periods, perhaps due to the long dominance of authoritarian political regimes, which were also driven by the minds of politicians whose thinking became corrupted by the allure of power.

All these transformations failed to alter the way politicians think. After the December Revolution, which erupted in the streets rather than being led by political parties, politicians seized power, but their minds remained fixated on the walls of power. They lacked any political project for meaningful change and had no concrete ideas for resolving disputes in politics, economics, education, or media. This was evident from the flood of slogans that filled the air but failed to materialize in reality. When political leaders realized their failure, they turned to external powers for guidance and support, hoping these powers would act as a lifeline to preserve their grip on power. Unfortunately, whether knowingly or unknowingly, they overlooked the fact that external powers have their own agendas tied to their interests — and they prioritize these interests above all else.

Some writers and intellectuals, when they became aware of the political mind’s crisis, instead of helping through the presentation of ideas and proposals to address the problem, resorted to justifications and the creation of imaginary enemies and illusions. They convinced themselves that these illusions were the truths that must be confronted. The more complex the solutions became, the more they resorted to new fabrications and the creation of enemies drawn from their imagination. The political culture of the Cold War era is no longer useful today, nor are the ideas of social and class conflict. The nationalist slogans that prevailed before the 1967 defeat in the war with Israel have also lost their relevance. All these ideas were defeated within their own societies before failing externally.

Any society must develop its thinking from within rather than importing ideas that conflict with its culture, beliefs, and values.

I received a voice message in which the sender spoke about leaks from a meeting of Islamic Movement leaders in Turkey, where three papers were allegedly presented containing highly dangerous content. I ignored it. However, I later received the same message from several friends and colleagues — surprisingly, from politicians in other parties. My question is: Why are you so preoccupied with others? Where are your meetings and the papers you should be presenting to propose solutions for post-war challenges? The person who spoke about the leaks failed to provide a single piece of evidence to support his claim. It is all part of the fabrications now intensifying after the army’s victories and Sudan’s filing of a complaint against the UAE at the International Court of Justice.

These people are starting to panic, fearing that the UAE might back down and abandon them. Those who rely on external support are always haunted by uncertainty and an unclear future. They are trying to scare decision-makers in the UAE by claiming that the Islamic Movement is becoming active, holding meetings in Turkey, and even sending Karti to meet with Burhan to set conditions. They are terrified that the UAE might withdraw its support, leaving them without a sponsor after they have burned all their bridges.

Political thinking based on ideas that failed in their original contexts, Cold War slogans, revolutionary rhetoric, and other outdated notions will not help in solving Sudan’s post-war problems. There must be a search for new approaches that diverge from previous failed methods, which only created enmity and exclusionary rhetoric. Dialogue, negotiation, and respect for differing views must become the tools that shape a new political culture. These are the foundations for discovering new political thinking.

The historical leadership that contributed to the accumulation of a political legacy based on imposing conditions and exclusion will represent the greatest obstacle to a democratic transition that depends on national consensus and broad social support. New thinking must emerge from political institutions, initiating internal change to eliminate outdated political mentalities that led to prolonged failures under authoritarian regimes.

May God grant us clarity of vision.