Face of Truth | Ibrahim Shglawi
The Newcomer Party
Since Sudan’s independence in 1956, its political experience has remained trapped in a cycle of recurring crises — not due to the absence of political parties, but rather their failure to renew political concepts and build a unifying national project. Though parties have varied in form and name, many remain captive to narrow agendas and serve as façades for failed elite conflicts.
In this context, founding a new party, whether it be “The Dignity Party” or otherwise, is not enough to overcome the current political deadlock unless it is built on a clear understanding of the party’s role itself: whom does this party represent? What does it offer? And how does it contribute to redefining the state and society? The renewal required today is not about form, but about vision, function, and core concepts.
The editor-in-chief of Al-Mijhar Al-Siyasi newspaper, Hindi Ezz Al-Din, commented yesterday on this party name on the “X” platform, expressing reservations about the symbolism of “dignity,” which he sees as emotionally linked to a military operation, “The Battle of Dignity,” in which the Sudanese people participated. However, it is not necessarily a political framework suitable for building a long-term party project.
Yet he did not address the underlying principle. In this article, we seek to explore the core idea, setting aside any assumptions about the motivations of those behind it — whether businesspeople, political leaders, or activists.
Therefore, let us pose a foundational question: Do we need the formation of “another new party,” or do we first need to redefine the very essence of the political party concept in Sudan?
Given the political reality our country has endured for years, and the profound confusion of loyalties and concepts on the scene — alongside some partisan practices that verge on betrayal of the nation — traditional parties, despite their historical legacies, have failed to innovate. Meanwhile, new parties continue to emerge without clear identity, often driven by personal ambition or political one-upmanship, rather than genuine political programs that reflect public aspirations and translate national priorities into action.
Establishing a meaningful party in this environment requires much more than choosing an appealing name or an inspiring slogan. It first demands a redefinition of the political party itself — as a democratic tool for shaping collective will, not as a vehicle for narrow interests or personal gain.
Unless both old and new parties free themselves from political and material opportunism, they will remain trapped in futile conflicts that reproduce chaos rather than foster a unified national project.
Party politics in Sudan has devolved into a realm dominated by personal interests and narrow affiliations, rather than a collective vision capable of building institutions that genuinely reflect public concerns and turn aspirations into actionable policies.
Sudanese citizens today are no longer seeking a charismatic leader or a dazzling slogan, but rather a party with a clear economic and social program addressing basic needs — livelihoods, public services, and social justice.
Regional experiences show that parties founded on strong programs, not mere slogans, are the ones that achieve meaningful transformation. In Turkey, the Justice and Development Party presented a reformist agenda that allowed it to rise from opposition to governance. In Rwanda, the National Front led by Paul Kagame spearheaded a comprehensive national revival after the horrors of genocide, driven by a national discourse and strict developmental agenda.
These examples affirm that a party is not merely an organizational shell — it is an instrument for expressing collective will and for state-building. Thus, reshaping Sudan’s party landscape does not require the creation of more parties, but rather thoughtful mergers based on shared principles and practical visions.
The goal is not to multiply party banners, but to foster three or four strong parties representing the major ideological streams — Islamist, liberal, nationalist, leftist — which could also encompass various movements and factions under clear programs, not opportunistic alliances.
One of the key obstacles to the development of Sudanese parties is the continued dependence on the “single leader” model, where political work is centered around an individual often linked to traditional or historical symbolism.
This model is no longer suitable for Sudan’s current reality, given the diversity of society and the varied capacities of its elites. Globally, the era of the “charismatic leader” has given way to collective, institutional leadership — based on shared responsibility and collaborative work.
Such a model is more realistic in addressing complex crises, more aligned with democratic principles, and more capable of producing practical solutions, while also protecting the party from external dependency.
Therefore, collective leadership and active consultation must form the core of any serious party project, moving beyond authoritarian structures that merely replicate failure.
From our perspective — #Face_of_Truth — the current political moment demands that serious elites redefine political party work: not as a means to gain power, but as a platform for producing a national project.
A party that cannot move beyond personalism and factionalism, and lacks a comprehensive program, remains a burden, not a tool for change. Without this fundamental shift in understanding, Sudanese parties will remain fragmented and adrift, and the dream of a state based on citizenship, development, and justice will remain elusive.
Wishing you all well and good health.
Wednesday, June 11, 2025
Shglawi55@gmail.com
