Face of the Truth: Kamil Idris’ Call for National Dialogue
Ibrahim Shaglawi
In the history of nations, moments of dialogue often emerge as opportunities to escape free fall. When such opportunities are taken seriously, they can become genuine pathways toward stability and peace. In Sudan, the experience of the national dialogue launched in 2014 represented one of those moments when it seemed the country was on the verge of regaining its awareness, and that the then political system had belatedly realized the impossibility of continuing along the same path without review or national reconciliation.
These days, the call by Prime Minister Dr. Kamil Idris for a comprehensive national dialogue stands out as a step in the right direction, carrying within it real potential to rebuild the Sudanese state on new foundations of national consensus, political openness, and the achievement of justice.
Dr. Idris’ emphasis that this dialogue be “Sudanese-Sudanese,” free from regional and international influences, reflects a sound understanding of the specificity of the Sudanese reality, and an awareness that externally imposed solutions often overlook internal complexities and generate new crises instead of resolving them.
For this initiative to achieve its goals, it must include all political and social forces, without exclusion or selectivity. Sudan today cannot endure further zero-sum conflicts that have weakened the state and torn apart the national fabric. Moving toward a new phase of stability requires transcending narrow partisan calculations and engaging in a comprehensive national project, where legal pathways are opened for justice, not revenge, and where those whose hands are stained with violence and support for militias are held accountable before the judiciary, not political committees.
To achieve this, it is essential to form a high-level national committee, chaired by the Prime Minister himself, responsible for setting the foundations and standards of this dialogue, defining its references and timeframe, in a way that ensures all parties align with the nation, not personal or ideological interests.
It is true that the national dialogue during the era of President Bashir was not ideal nor free of flaws, but in both form and substance, it carried the seeds of a possible transition to a new reality. Had it not been for the obstacles placed in its path, it might have preserved the unity of the country and addressed many of the fractures that afflicted its social and political structure as a result of years of division and conflict.
That dialogue addressed fundamental issues: identity, the system of governance, distribution of power and wealth, justice, public freedoms, the relationship between center and periphery, and reform of the state and its institutions. Had those recommendations been transformed into a comprehensive national program, Sudan might have advanced significantly toward stability.
However, the experience halted midway for multiple reasons, not the place to detail here. What remains certain is that the national dialogue at that time represented a rare moment of political awareness that the country could not be governed by the logic of the “sole player.”
Today, a new approach is required—one that invests in peace and establishes a renewed national dialogue under more complex and fragile circumstances. The recent war has opened deep wounds in the Sudanese body, sparing neither city nor village, and has placed everyone before the question of destiny. What Dr. Kamil Idris proposes through his call for a comprehensive dialogue is a conscious extension of that earlier moment when Sudan attempted, in “Naivasha, Abuja,” to overcome its setbacks through national dialogue.
The current call, in its essence, moves in the right direction: no exclusion, no revenge, no bargaining or blackmail. Rather, it envisions a comprehensive national meeting to address Sudan’s major issues with transparency and objectivity, drawing lessons from the war. The commitment to prompt justice—not transitional justice—and the formation of a committee chaired by the Prime Minister to set the foundations and standards, are all indications that this anticipated dialogue may possess a level of seriousness and clarity absent from previous attempts.
Betting on dialogue is not a sign of weakness. Nations are not built by violence or domination, but through consensus and mutual understanding on fundamental principles. What Sudan needs today is nothing more than a genuine opportunity for national will to converge, free from grudges and classifications, grounded solely in what benefits the country and unites its people on common ground.
If this dialogue is well organized, sincerely implemented, and its details entrusted to those of sound judgment and competence rather than considerations of loyalty and power-sharing, we may be before a historic corrective moment no less significant than the one initiated by the previous national dialogue. Had that earlier effort been completed, Sudan might have crossed into a new phase preserving its unity, safeguarding its social fabric, and putting an end to the cycles of violence that have exhausted it.
Therefore, from what we see through #Face_of_the_Truth, what is needed today is not merely opening a hall for dialogue, but restoring national will and giving an opportunity to shape a new future—away from political maneuvering. In this nation, there is much worth engaging in dialogue for—honestly and responsibly—without mortgaging decision-making to external forces, and with a vigilant historical awareness that time is no longer on anyone’s side.
Wishing you continued health and well-being.
Republished… Monday, April 20, 2026
Shglawi55@gmail.com