Who Has the Right to Declare the Death of Political Parties?

Mustafa Abdelaziz Al-Batal

I have no particular concern with what Professor Babikir Faisal wrote, calling for the dismissal and exclusion of Islamists from Sudan’s political life. In my view, he is merely expressing his aspirations and wishes, driven by a genuine desire to clear the political arena of forces that stand in the way of his and his colleagues’ return to positions of power. There is nothing surprising about that. Those who have tasted the sweetness of authority and were weaned from it prematurely often remain captive to nostalgia, seeing the exclusion of their rivals as the shortest path back to power.

We have previously argued that the return of the transformed “FFC” group under the banner of “Sumoud” to repeat the experience of exclusive partnership with the military and monopolization of executive power—as occurred following the security committee’s seizure of power in 2019—is virtually impossible for reasons we have explained elsewhere. We noted that the political capital possessed by the “Sumoud” group, represented by the support it receives from regional and international actors, is insufficient to transform these aspirations into political reality.

What caught my attention, however, was what my friend, engineer Osman Mirghani (whose article is attached below), wrote. He appeared not merely to echo Professor Babikir Faisal but to outbid him. He does not stop at calling on the Islamic Movement to review its experience and apologize for its mistakes; rather, he calls on it to dissolve itself and leave the political arena altogether.

This morning, in an online discussion group that includes Osman and myself—dubbed by some members “The Thinkers’ Group,” while our dear friend Dr. Ashari Ahmed Mahmoud calls it “The Charlatans’ Group”—I asked him to elaborate on the logic behind this call so that I could better understand it. His response was that the Islamic Movement, as an idea, “has lost the foundational principles upon which it was built.” I then asked whether this meant that the movement’s principles, ideas, and programs had become outdated and were no longer suitable for contemporary Sudan. His answer was yes.

I decided to bring my response to this dear friend to Mark Zuckerberg’s public square, seeking further brainstorming, probing ideas, and inviting reflection in the hope that the discussion might lead us closer to what is right and true.

I had asked Osman to tell me what he knew about the principles, objectives, and programs of the Sudanese Communist Party, the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party, the Republican Party, the Democratic Unionist Party—which its supporters describe as the party of the national movement—and the various branches of the Umma Party.

Our discussion led to several conclusions, including:

1. The Communist Party: It too has been overtaken by time, intellectually, theoretically, and practically, and no longer possesses a genuine capacity for renewal.
2. The Ba’ath Party: Its ideology has withered and faded and no longer exerts meaningful political influence.
3. The Republican Party: It effectively ended with the passing of its founder and principal thinker.

Does this mean that the other parties dominating the national scene alone possess the ingredients necessary for survival and political legitimacy?

Take the Democratic Unionist Party as an example. What is its ideology today? What are its goals? What is its political program? We know that it returned to political life after a sixteen-year absence following the May 1969 coup and contested the 1986 elections under a platform titled “The Islamic Republic”—a fact that may surprise many younger generations.

But the obvious question is this: Does the Democratic Unionist Party still advocate the establishment of an Islamic Republic in Sudan? The reality is that it has not presented a new political program since the 1986 elections—four decades ago. Throughout this period, no clear ideology, theory, or political program has emerged from the party. What people see instead is a continuous struggle among the sons of the spiritual leader for control of the party. At one time, Hassan’s star rises; at another, Jaafar’s. Supporters rally around one or the other, while discussion of principles, ideas, and programs remains absent.

The same applies to the Umma Party, which was effectively embodied in the person of its late leader, Imam Sadiq al-Mahdi: the ideas were in his head, the money in his pocket, and the decisions in his hands. The party contested the 1986 elections under a platform called “The Islamic Awakening.” Yet, like the Democratic Unionist Party, this slogan remained frozen for forty years without meaningful development or revision.

When the Imam passed away, no one seemed to ask about the party’s principles, ideas, policies, or programs, as though they had all departed with him. In today’s reality, few people can identify a coherent political theory or project associated with the party. Instead, public discussion revolves around the sons and daughters of Sayyida Sarah, the sons and daughters of Sayyida Hafia, their spouses, and the dynamics of family balance and political inheritance.

I said: Glory be to God! If all these parties suffer, according to the standard proposed by our friends, from intellectual aging, project stagnation, lack of a clear program, and an inability to renew themselves, why is the call for dissolution directed exclusively at the Islamic Movement? Why should it not, by the same logic, extend to all parties that no longer possess meaningful ideas, vision, or programs to offer their people?

The real crisis in Sudan is not the existence of any particular party, movement, or political current. Rather, it is the absence of self-criticism and renewal across the entire political spectrum. If one wishes to make continued relevance dependent upon the ability to generate ideas, formulate programs, and respond to changing realities, then this standard should be applied equally to everyone without exception.

But when such a standard becomes merely a tool for excluding opponents while overlooking allies, it ceases to be an objective judgment on ideas. Instead, it becomes a triumph of selectivity and a reinforcement of double standards.