Face of Truth: October has been in our nation since time immemorial..
Ibrahim Shglawi
In the history of nations, there are moments that go beyond being mere political events to become pivotal stations in shaping collective consciousness and defining the contours of the future. Such was the October 21, 1964 Revolution in Sudanese memory; it was not merely a popular uprising against a military regime, but a declaration that the Sudanese people possess advanced political awareness and a deeply rooted will that rejects tyranny and dependency.
In the October revolution, Sudan presented itself to the world as a conscious nation that does not accept submission to individual rule or external domination. This revolution was not a mere popular outburst but the result of meticulous organization led by professional and student unions, alongside political elites who united under the principle: a free, unbound homeland.
However, comparing the October 1964 and December 2019 revolutions reveals a stark contrast between those who carried a nation-building project and those who relied on a chaotic, dreamy discourse devoid of political substance. While the first produced a transitional government based on genuine national consensus, the second fell into the trap of sharp ideological classifications. The political elite splintered into confused forces skilled only in hate speech, and a military institution seeking a safe exit for the country to escape its historical predicament.
The December Revolution turned into a battlefield for competing foreign agendas, stripped of its national essence, and became a tool in a complex regional game that dragged the country into the furnace of war.
What happened after 2019 is not merely the failure of elites to manage a transitional phase, but a direct result of Sudan becoming a testing ground for the concept of “soft hegemony.” Control is no longer exercised through direct occupation but through far more insidious tools: conditional aid, political pressure, supporting organizations, and embassies that have overstepped diplomatic norms to impose themselves in political life.
The International Quartet – the United States, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE – does not move out of concern for Sudan’s future, but rather from strategic visions that see it as a conduit for special interests and a theater for overlapping influence in Africa, the Red Sea, and the Horn of Africa.
In this sense, what is presented as political support or international mediation is nothing but a process to reshape the role of the Sudanese state within a new regional order aimed at keeping Sudan a fragile, dependent state with no will—performing a specific function without being active in its regional and international surroundings, or even in determining its own destiny.
The October Revolution triumphed over explicit tyranny, but today’s challenge is more complex and subtle. The country now faces a new kind of colonization with soft tools cloaked in the guise of “international support,” hiding a miserable engineering project to reproduce a Sudan without sovereignty.
Perhaps even more dangerous than funding and direct interference is the redefinition of political concepts themselves. Sovereignty no longer means an independent national decision but has become conditional on the approval of the “international community.” Democracy is no longer a popular entitlement but a bargaining chip managed behind closed doors. What is now called “national consensus” is being redefined as “international consensus,” drafted abroad—in Entebbe, Brussels, or Abu Dhabi—not in the Sudanese parliament or national decision-making centers.
National sovereignty has been turned into a commodity traded in negotiations, while political elites became more preoccupied with pleasing embassies than gaining the trust of the streets. The absence of a unifying national project and the internal divisions among revolutionary forces have facilitated the reengineering of the political landscape to serve external interests rather than internal aspirations.
Moreover, the door was opened to regional parties to fund the Rapid Support Militia outside state institutions, which led to the outbreak of the current war that tore the country apart and displaced the people into exile.
Nevertheless, there are indicators of serious shifts. The Sudanese government’s decision in May 2025 to cut ties with the UAE and classify it as a hostile state was not merely a response to its military support for a rebellious militia but a bold political declaration expressing the beginning of a correction path toward reclaiming and preserving national sovereignty.
If we are to understand October with its full awareness, we must take serious steps that could form a launching point for building a balanced foreign policy that places national interest above all else—provided it is accompanied by restoring the stature of state institutions, reducing the influence of foreign missions, and liberating elites from the complex of external dependency.
Songs and poets have documented the October Revolution as one of the greatest transformations in Sudan’s history. October has been in our nation since time immemorial—living behind patience and sorrow, resiliently waiting until the dawn appeared, igniting history with fire and rising.
October was not merely a political event but a major cultural and social moment. From Mohammed Al-Makki Ibrahim to Hashim Siddig, from Mohammed Al-Amin to Wardi, from Fadallah Mohammed to the Octoberiats poems, October has remained alive in the nation’s conscience—present whenever danger looms, and inspiring in times of despair and disappointment.
According to #Face_of_Truth, October, which was a true revolution against tyranny, stands today as a political reference point for building a new national project—one that not only reclaims sovereignty but anchors it within institutions, the constitution, and the collective consciousness.
The people who overthrew Abboud, then Nimeiry, and later Bashir, surely are not incapable of building a democratic, sovereign state—so long as they free themselves from the illusions of guardianship and muster the courage to shape their own future. October was not just a memory; it remains an open invitation to awareness, action, construction, and the re-establishment of the Sudanese state on the foundation of a national decision made by the people of Sudan—not by foreign capitals.
Wishing you wellness and prosperity.
Wednesday, October 22, 2025
Shglawi55@gmail.com