Face of Truth | Ibrahim Shglawi
Charity Journalism and the Crumbs of the Blamers’ Tables
In times of war, the mettle of men is revealed, and the reality of roles becomes clear. When the pen finds itself compelled to address the performance of a crumbling government, a media office that confuses managing criticism with managing conflict, and a political advisor who feeds on vilification more than on building the state’s discourse, there exists a flaw that cannot be overlooked, and writing becomes inevitable.
A prime minister cannot leave the country on foreign tours lasting more than two weeks while the political arena desperately needs his reassurance and answers. Tasks usually entrusted to diplomatic or security institutions do not befit the head of the executive to delegate himself while on an official mission, raising legitimate questions: Are we facing a government that manages the files, or is it being managed? And is the fear of addressing the domestic front stronger than the allure of foreign travel?
If this absence is catastrophic, the greater disaster lies in the decision-making environment surrounding him: the media office, which is supposed to embellish the government’s performance with logic and reasoning and build bridges with the press, now prefers impulsive responses that target journalists instead of confronting the necessary questions.
A political advisor who believes that accusing journalists absolves the government of its failures plays the role of a “verbal executioner,” threatening journalists, classifying them as either sycophants or opportunists, and vowing to pursue them.
What worsens the matter are official statements that do not resemble a state, but rather platforms of chaos, revealing a mindset attempting to escape accountability by creating side conflicts instead of facing the major questions: Who determines the country’s path? Who speaks on behalf of the people? Who negotiates Sudan’s future?
If some believe that criticism is an attempt to “destroy the government,” the truth is simpler: the government destroys itself when it shirks its duties, hides behind a wall of shameful words, leaving the people without answers and the nation without vision. A government that trembles at journalistic criticism and mobilizes its advisor against opinion articles is a government that has lost confidence in itself before losing the people’s trust.
Conversely, another question arises: how can journalism, at a pivotal moment burdened with duty and history, maintain a path of responsible criticism without turning into a platform for vilification or settling scores? The journalist must recognize, while performing their role, that the word is a trust, and that critiquing government performance is not done through vulgarity or provocation, but through deep analysis and adherence to professional values.
Yet the government’s sin is greater: it treats criticism as treason, journalism as a political adversary, and the public as an enemy that must be silenced. This alone is enough to undermine any political legitimacy, regardless of the height of official rhetoric.
If the prime minister believes that time works in his favor, it is an illusion, and if those around him think the response to criticism should be insults, it is ignorance of the nature of governance. Journalism does not triumph over power, nor does it topple it, but it exposes absence when everyone remains silent and documents positions when doors are closed.
No clearer sign of this confusion exists than the government’s failure to read the major shifts in the nature of the war. After Volker Turk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, stated that “Sudan is exposed to a proxy war aimed at exploiting its resources,” it was the government’s duty to reshape its discourse and act with a clear plan. Instead, it continued practicing “management by absence,” without leveraging this crucial statement to change the equation.
War experiences reveal that the absence of executive leadership in critical moments leaves the state exposed to internal divisions, especially when a national project unifying vision is absent. In Sudan, this flaw is magnified by statements that rise above the press, turning criticism into hostility instead of recognizing it as a pillar of national partnership.
Here arises the fundamental question: is the executive authority capable of performing the state’s role in its regional and international balance, or does it expend itself on side battles that raise doubts about its intentions? The contentious nature of some statements suggests an effort to divert attention from a politically re-engineered reality in closed rooms, while the war is reduced to “verbal battles,” with dangerous indicators leaking about undisclosed agreements affecting the future of the country’s resources and their direction.
Analyzing the scene, the government facing its crisis with defensive rhetoric appears incapable of forming a national narrative that unites the people, revealing a structural flaw in its conception of its political function. This flaw becomes even more dangerous when international conflicts over the country’s wealth are conducted in its political absence, while the local actor becomes merely a cover, eroding trust and widening the gap between the state and its society.
In conclusion, according to #Face_of_Truth, no one is immune from criticism, and no profession is above accountability. Governments are measured by their actions, not slogans, and journalism remains worthy of respect to the extent that it preserves its independence, integrity, and distance from charity and the blamers’ tables.
Stay well and safe.
Wednesday, November 19, 2025
Shglawi55@gmail.com
