Face of Truth: Kamal Idris’s Call for National Dialogue
Ibrahim Shglawi
Throughout the history of nations, moments of dialogue often emerge as opportunities to escape freefall. When such opportunities are taken seriously, they can become genuine bridges to stability and peace. In Sudan, the national dialogue initiative launched in 2014 represented one of those moments when the country seemed close to regaining its sense of direction, and when the political system—albeit belatedly—began to realize the impossibility of continuing along the same path without reform or reconciliation.
Today, Prime Minister Dr. Kamal Idris’s call for an inclusive national dialogue appears as a step in the right direction. It carries with it the real potential to rebuild the Sudanese state on new foundations of national consensus, political openness, and justice.
Dr. Idris’s insistence that this dialogue be “Sudanese-Sudanese,” free from regional and international influence, reflects a deep understanding of Sudan’s unique moment in history. It also signals an awareness that externally imposed solutions often overlook the complexities of internal realities, leading to new crises rather than resolving existing ones.
However, for this initiative to reach its goals, it must be founded on complete inclusivity of all political and social forces—without exclusion or selectivity. Sudan can no longer afford zero-sum conflicts that have weakened the state and torn apart the national fabric. Transitioning to a new era of stability requires moving beyond narrow partisan calculations and engaging in a collective national project, where legal paths to justice are upheld—not those of revenge—and where those whose hands are stained with violence or militia support are held accountable in court, not before political committees.
To achieve this, it is vital to establish a high-level national committee, chaired by the Prime Minister himself, tasked with setting the foundations and criteria for this dialogue and defining its references—ensuring that all parties align with national interests, not personal or ideological agendas.
The national dialogue under President al-Bashir’s rule, though far from ideal and not without flaws, nonetheless held the seeds of a potential transition to a new order. If it had not been obstructed by various actors, it might have preserved national unity and addressed many of the deep fractures in Sudan’s social and political structure caused by decades of division and conflict.
That dialogue raised essential issues: identity, system of governance, distribution of power and wealth, justice, public freedoms, center-periphery relations, and even institutional reform. Had those recommendations been transformed into a national program, Sudan could have taken major steps toward stability. Yet the experience stalled midway for various reasons—not to be detailed here—but it remains a fact that the dialogue at the time represented a rare moment of political realization that the country could no longer be governed with a “sole player” mentality.
Today, a new approach is needed—one that invests in peace and establishes a fresh national dialogue, this time amid far more complex and fragile conditions. The recent war has opened deep wounds in Sudan’s body; no town or village has escaped its impact, and the nation now faces an existential question. Dr. Kamal Idris’s proposal for a comprehensive dialogue is a conscious continuation of the moment Sudan once had when it tried to overcome its crises through inclusive national dialogue.
The current call, at face value, moves in the right direction: no exclusion, no revenge, no bargaining or blackmail—just a comprehensive national meeting to openly and honestly discuss Sudan’s major issues. It must draw on the lessons of war and past successful reconciliation experiences in Sudan’s history. The emphasis on prompt, not transitional, justice and the idea of a committee chaired by the Prime Minister himself to lay the groundwork and criteria—these are signs that this upcoming dialogue might possess a seriousness and clarity that past attempts lacked.
Betting on dialogue is not a sign of weakness. Nations are not built through violence or dominance, but through consensus and mutual understanding of foundational principles. What Sudan needs today is nothing more than a genuine opportunity for national will to converge—free from hatred and categorization, based only on what benefits the country and unites its people on common ground.
If this dialogue is well-organized, implemented with sincere intentions, and entrusted to capable and thoughtful individuals—rather than dictated by loyalty or division of spoils—we may well be standing before a historic corrective moment, no less significant than the one that began with the previous national dialogue. Had that effort reached completion, Sudan might have entered a new phase, safeguarding its unity, preserving its social fabric, and ending the cycles of violence that have drained it for decades.
Therefore, as we see it from the #Face_of_Truth, what we need today is not just to open a dialogue hall, but to restore national will and allow the space to shape a new future—far from political maneuvering. Indeed, this country holds much worth dialoguing for—truthfully, responsibly, without foreign dependence, and with a historical awareness that time is no longer on anyone’s side.
Wishing you all peace and well-being.
Tuesday, July 8, 2025
Shglawi55@gmail.com