The Measure of Patriotism Between the National Congress Party and “Sumud”

By Osman Galal

(1)

Following the coup carried out by the Security Committee against the National Accord Government led by President Omar al-Bashir on April 11, 2019—under the pretext of “aligning with the people’s will”—the National Congress Party (NCP) appointed Professor Ibrahim Ghandour, known for his wisdom, as party leader. He adopted the slogan of respecting the public’s desire for change, safeguarding Sudan’s unity, and steering the party toward a constructive opposition role until the completion of the transitional phase and the achievement of consensual elections among all political forces—an essential condition for building a sustainable democratic national project.

The NCP possesses extensive experience in national dialogue, which previously led to the inclusion of nearly all active political forces in central, state, and local governance. The Government of National Accord, born out of the “National Dialogue Initiative,” was almost equally shared between the NCP and other national political groups.

(2)

The experience of the Salvation Regime in power could have paved the way for a smooth and sustainable democratic transition through elections—had it not been for the composite coup of April 11, initially led by the regime’s own security committee. That coup was then exploited by mercenary leader Mohamed Hamdan “Hemeti”, who used it to build his military and economic empire.

Later, the Forces of Freedom and Change / Sumud alliance (FFC/Sumud) also capitalized on the situation by monopolizing transitional institutions. Eventually, both Hemeti and the Sumud alliance became agents and intermediaries for the Zionist project and its regional instrument, Mohammed bin Zayed—a project aimed at erasing Sudan’s identity, incorporating it into the orbit of Zionist dependency, and looting its resources.

Alternatively, the project continues to invest in Sudan’s internal divisions to keep the country trapped in a vicious cycle of weakness, decay, and susceptibility to manipulation.

(3)

After the ouster of President al-Bashir, the FFC/Sumud alliance had a historic opportunity to engage in meaningful dialogue with the national Islamic movement that supported change. This could have produced a critical historical bloc capable of forging strategic consensus on issues of nation-building and sustainable democratic transformation.

Instead, the alliance chose to align itself with the Zionist-Emirati agenda, adopting a policy of hostility toward the Islamic movement in general—and the NCP in particular. It began with dismissals, purges, imprisonment, and the confiscation of private property, redistributed through the notorious Empowerment Removal Committee.

The alliance went so far as to attempt to label the national Islamic movement—the country’s largest grassroots base—as a terrorist organization, while also waging an ideological war against religion and moral values. Sudan nearly descended into a deadly identity conflict, were it not for General al-Burhan’s corrective measures on October 25, 2021, which ended the uneasy partnership between the military and the FFC/Sumud coalition.

(4)

A second historic opportunity arose for the Sumud alliance after the military officially withdrew from the political process in July 2022. This could have been a moment to rebuild trust with other political forces, including the national Islamic current, and to forge consensus on transitional priorities, nation-building, and sustainable democracy.

But what did the Sumud alliance do instead?
It continued to act as a proxy for the Zionist-Emirati project—one fundamentally opposed to democracy in Sudan and the wider Arab region. FFC/Sumud chose to ally itself with Hemeti, the warlord aspiring to rule Sudan.

Through their joint leadership of the April 15, 2023 war—a devastating conflict against the army, the people, and the state—the Sumud alliance and the Dagalo family militia achieved what the Zionist project had failed to accomplish since the founding of its apartheid entity in Palestine in 1948. Were it not for the courage of the Sudanese army and people, both the nation’s structures and spirit would have collapsed.

(5)

On the other side, how did the Islamic movement, led by the National Congress Party, respond?
Despite persecution and hardship, the movement’s youth and elders rallied alongside the Sudanese people and armed forces to confront the Zionist-Emirati project and its domestic agents—the Sumud alliance and the Dagalo militia.

Thus, the distinction between patriotism and treachery becomes unmistakably clear.

The first shot in this war was fired by the “desert locusts” and their civilian allies, but the final shot of victory will be fired by the Sudanese people and army—either on the battlefield or through the surrender and prosecution of the militia and Sumud leaders.

When the military phase ends, it will mark the beginning of a new political phase: the establishment of a Party of Dignity, led by patriotic political, social, and armed movements that supported the army. This party will guide the intellectual, political, and constitutional battle for nation-building and sustainable democratic transformation—on the condition that any future constitutional framework must guarantee the institutional participation of the military in governance.