Ahmed Haroun and Al-Mahboub Abdel-Salam: Divergent Perspectives and the Challenges of National Consensus
Dr. Osama Mohamed Abdelrahim
The lengthy interview conducted by media personality Rabie Siraj with Ahmed Haroun, leader of the National Congress Party, followed by a critical article written by Al-Mahboub Abdel-Salam under the title “Or Are We Simply Repeating What We Have Said Before?”, has brought back to the forefront of Sudanese debate a number of issues that have remained central to the country’s political trajectory since independence. These include the need to reassess political experiences, the responsibility of political elites, the future of the constitutional system, and the relationship between the military establishment and civilian authority. The significance of the interview and the article extends beyond the exchange between the two figures, opening up a broader space for reflection on the future of the state and the prospects for national dialogue amid the ongoing war and its repercussions.
Perhaps the most important value of this debate is that it has enabled public opinion to hear two perspectives rooted in shared intellectual and political origins, yet differing in their assessment of the experience and the means of overcoming its shortcomings. One perspective emerges from the experience and responsibilities of governance and seeks to defend some of its achievements and choices, while the other approaches that experience critically and calls for deeper intellectual and political reassessments. Between these two perspectives lies considerable room for dialogue that extends beyond the National Congress Party, the Popular Congress Party, and the Islamic Movement to encompass all other political forces that have participated in governing Sudan or opposed its successive regimes, and which have contributed, to varying degrees, to shaping the country’s accumulated crises.
During the interview, Ahmed Haroun presented his vision of issues relating to the future of governance, federalism, the electoral system, and the relationship between constitutional institutions, in addition to his assessment of the National Salvation experience and the fall of its regime. These propositions derive their significance from the fact that they were presented by a figure who held major executive and political responsibilities during a pivotal period in Sudan’s history. They also reflect the return of this political current to the public arena to articulate its vision of the state’s future.
Al-Mahboub Abdel-Salam, meanwhile, approached the interview from a sharply critical perspective, focusing on the absence of publicly declared reassessments of the governing experience, the persistence of certain patterns of political and organizational thinking, and the overlap between party authority and state institutions. Drawing on his familiarity with the Islamic experience and his participation in some of its stages, he gave his article a dimension that went beyond a direct commentary to become an intellectual examination of a political experience that spanned three decades.
The issue of reassessment, which formed a central theme in Al-Mahboub’s criticism, is particularly significant. Every political organization has the right to conduct internal reviews through its own institutions and mechanisms. However, an organization that governed the country for thirty years bears a political and moral responsibility toward society that requires it to make public the conclusions of its reassessments concerning public affairs and clarify its position on the mistakes and decisions that affected citizens’ lives and the future of the state. Reassessment acquires real value when its findings are translated into visions, programmes, and practices that can be evaluated, thereby allowing society to judge the seriousness of any transformation in political thinking.
While this demand is legitimate, a careful reading of Al-Mahboub’s article reveals that some of his harsh characterizations of the leaders of that experience, as well as his judgments about their motives and political culture, diverted part of the discussion away from the substance of the intellectual and constitutional propositions he raised. Nevertheless, the article posed important questions about the nature of governance, the exercise of power, and the role of institutions, all of which deserve objective discussion. At the same time, focusing exclusively on the failures of the experience may obscure other aspects that also warrant examination and evaluation. Major political experiences encompass both achievements and failures, and their historical assessment requires consideration of their circumstances, outcomes, and effects on the state and society.
The responsibility for reassessment should also extend to all political forces, including those that participated in the transitional government after April 2019 or contributed to managing the political conflict that preceded the war. The Sudanese predicament has continued to recur under both civilian and military administrations, while political elites exchange accusations and shift responsibility without undertaking comprehensive reviews of their respective roles in producing the crises.
It is important to distinguish between political reassessment and legal accountability. Reassessment is an intellectual and moral responsibility that requires acknowledging mistakes and drawing lessons from them, whereas criminal liability falls within the jurisdiction of an independent judiciary operating under guarantees of justice and due legal process. Demands for reassessment should not become a means of political exclusion, just as references to achievements should not be used as a pretext for overlooking mistakes or obstructing accountability. The rights of victims, reparations, and redress for those affected remain integral components of any serious national reconciliation process.
The relationship between the Armed Forces and political activity, which Al-Mahboub raised and Ahmed Haroun addressed, deserves more in-depth discussion. The historical problem concerns the entanglement of the military establishment with political forces in the exercise of power, and the resulting imbalance in the relationship between state institutions, political parties, and organizations.
The Armed Forces are a national institution with an established institutional structure. Their legitimacy derives from the Constitution and the law, and they bear responsibility for defending the state and protecting its sovereignty and security. Political stability requires clearly defining constitutional jurisdictions, safeguarding the professionalism of the military institution, and building a political system that prevents its exploitation in partisan competition, while preserving its ability to discharge its national duties.
This issue has become even more important in light of the ongoing war, the emergence of auxiliary armed formations, and the future challenges these developments pose to unified military command and the state’s legitimate monopoly on the use of force.
As for federalism, the electoral system, and the distribution of powers—issues that occupied a considerable portion of both the interview and the article—they require constitutional debate that moves beyond historical polarization. One illustrative example is Ahmed Haroun’s proposal to treat Sudan as a single electoral constituency within a proportional representation framework, and Al-Mahboub’s reservations about the impact of such an arrangement on geographical representation and the ties between elected representatives and their local communities.
Comparative electoral systems, however, offer various formulas for combining party lists with geographical constituencies, including mixed electoral systems that achieve a degree of balance between fair political representation and multiparty pluralism on the one hand, and ensuring the representation of states and local communities in legislative institutions on the other.
Federalism also requires a clear distribution of powers and resources, as well as independent institutions that protect the rights of the states and ensure that those in authority remain accountable. These issues demand a national constitutional consensus that draws on Sudan’s own experience and comparative expertise, while taking into account the country’s social composition and geographical and cultural diversity.
A deeper issue also emerges in this context: the culture of disagreement within Sudanese political life. Certain segments of the political elite have become accustomed to treating opposing opinions as hostile positions warranting condemnation, and sometimes accusations of treason and exclusion. Democratic practice, however, requires recognizing the right of others to express themselves, organize, and participate in political life in accordance with the Constitution and the law.
From this perspective, Ahmed Haroun’s appearance to present his views and Al-Mahboub Abdel-Salam’s publication of his public criticism represent practices that deserve encouragement in principle, regardless of whether one agrees with either man’s arguments. Freedom of opinion derives its value from protecting even the views with which we disagree, allowing citizens to listen to different propositions and judge between them without guardianship or intimidation.
This issue brings renewed attention to the importance of Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue, for which efforts are underway to prepare the conditions for convening it inside the country. The success of such dialogue requires recognition of political, intellectual, and social pluralism, the provision of legal and security guarantees for participants, and the creation of an environment in which different perspectives can be exchanged without fear of persecution over peaceful political positions and opinions.
Here, it is necessary to distinguish between freedom of expression as an inherent right belonging to everyone and eligibility for public office and the exercise of political rights, which are regulated by the provisions of the Constitution, the law, and judicial rulings that meet the requirements of due process and justice. Crimes and violations must also remain subject to legal accountability, without absolute political immunity or the manipulation of justice to settle political scores.
Within this framework, the Sudanese-Sudanese Dialogue Preparatory Committee faces a genuine test of its ability to transform the idea of dialogue into a credible national process based on publicly declared participation criteria and capable of accommodating different political and civilian forces, regardless of their ideological backgrounds or positions on the war and the current authorities.
Dialogue, however, also requires a mutual willingness to listen to others, accept national compromises, and abide by agreed outcomes, even when some of those outcomes conflict with organizational interests or narrow political calculations. Sudan has witnessed numerous agreements that faltered during implementation because of weak institutional commitment to their provisions. This underscores the importance of establishing clear guarantees and mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of the outcomes of any national dialogue.
The war, which has continued since April 2023, has imposed a new reality on all political forces, given the severe damage inflicted on state institutions, infrastructure, and the national economy, as well as the resulting displacement, forced migration, and decline in public services and production.
National priorities have consequently become more urgent. Foremost among them are ending the rebellion and restoring security, protecting civilians, preserving the country’s unity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, facilitating the return of internally displaced persons and refugees, rebuilding what the war has destroyed, and establishing institutions capable of restoring the functions of the state.
Foreign interventions and the proliferation of armed formations also present security and political challenges that require national consensus on the unity of the military institution, the state’s legitimate monopoly on arms, and the creation of conditions for a stable political transition founded on the popular will.
This brings into focus the need to separate disagreements over the history of the National Salvation regime from disagreements over Sudan’s future. Political forces have every right to differ in their assessment of the thirty-year experience, to hold contrasting interpretations of the period following the regime’s fall, and to exchange criticism regarding responsibility for the crises that led to the war.
However, continually invoking historical rivalries without drawing lessons from them threatens to reproduce the very same crises. Perhaps the fundamental predicament revealed by Sudan’s experience lies in the inability of political elites to transform political ideas into stable institutions and binding rules applicable to everyone, coupled with their continued tendency to place organizational and personal interests above the requirements of the state.
Sudan today needs political and intellectual courage that restores the primacy of the national interest, reaffirms criticism as an instrument of correction, and establishes a dialogue that acknowledges mistakes, learns from past experiences, and moves beyond the settling of scores.
The National Congress Party, along with other political parties and currents, is required to present clear visions for the future of the state, addressing governance, the economy, justice, development, and foreign relations, while providing answers to the questions of the present and the challenges of the post-war period.
Perhaps what makes Ahmed Haroun’s interview and Al-Mahboub Abdel-Salam’s article worthy of attention is that they open up space for intellectual and political disagreement that could serve as an entry point for broader national dialogue, provided that the discussion moves away from defending the past and personal polemics toward examining ideas, programmes, and alternatives.
Political forces must recognize that agreement on the rules governing the state can bring them together despite differences in their ideological foundations and political projects.
National dialogue provides an entry point for reaching consensus on constitutional and political foundations and the rules governing the transitional period, while free and fair elections are the means through which the people express their will and grant a mandate to those who assume power. These two functions complement each other in building a political system that derives its legitimacy from the popular will and remains subject to accountability and the rule of law.
The central point remains that Sudan is greater than its political parties, leaders, and historical disputes. The future its people deserve can only be built through the ability to acknowledge mistakes, respect differences, uphold the rule of law, and place the nation above organizations, power, and individuals.
When dialogue becomes a means of building the state, and freedom of opinion becomes a right for everyone, Sudanese people will be able to open a new chapter in which they compete to serve their country, after decades of competing to rule it.
