Face of Truth: Al-Burhan Between Speech and Silence…
Ibrahim Shaghlawi
In recent days, President Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan has continued his direct meetings with citizens, with Friday’s visits including Sheikh Hamad Al-Nil Mosque in Omdurman, followed by Al-Wadi Street and Al-Sisi Street in Karari locality, while the visits concluded yesterday, Saturday, at Freedom Square in East Deim, in a scene that reflected remarkable popular engagement.
Yet this presence, despite its important implications at this stage, comes within a political and media context in which the state’s official discourse is receding in the face of a flood of leaks and unconfirmed reports regarding regional and international meetings and mediations linked to the war, peace, and ceasefire file, placing public opinion before an informational vacuum in which rumors become narratives capable of being believed.
However, this presence, despite its importance, remains part of an equation that is incomplete unless it is supported by a periodic discourse that redefines the role of the state at this stage, as the trusted source of information, and the reference that organizes society’s awareness of what is happening around it.
From here, state discourse becomes an effective mechanism for regulating public opinion and preventing its fragmentation, as its absence does not merely leave a political and media vacuum, but also opens the door to multiple sources of interpretation outside the official reference, where rumors advance as an alternative explanation that fills the space left by the state.
In this context, Sudanese political memory recalls previous models in which direct discourse was part of governance, as in the experience of former President Jaafar Muhammad Nimeiri, when regular communication with the public served as a tool for consolidating the official narrative and confronting political, economic, and security challenges.
During his rule extending from 1969 to 1985, President Jaafar Nimeiri adopted a pattern of direct discourse through radio and television in what became known as “The Disclosure Meeting,” which represented a series of periodic speeches directed to the public, later evolving under the title “Between the Shepherd and the Flock.”
These speeches were not merely media messages, but rather a tool for guiding public opinion, and a means of presenting state policies and explaining its economic, political, and security crises directly, within a context in which the regime sought to regulate the relationship between authority and society through regular communication, not through traditional media alone..
In times of crisis, this discourse was characterized by a degree of candor that drew the attention of elites and the public, as Nimeiri addressed the performance of state institutions and criticized manifestations of administrative dysfunction and waste, with clear calls for discipline and the enforcement of law.
In Sudan’s scene today, one does not need great effort to observe the nature of this vacuum. Open media platforms are crowded with reports of secret meetings, political settlements under formation, and arrangements being managed behind the scenes, ranging from regional mediations mentioned from time to time, to talk of shifting political arrangements in more than one capital.
In this context, circulating indications emerge regarding a possible Omani mediation between Sudan and the UAE, in addition to what is being raised concerning international roles in tracks related to a ceasefire through international channels, including what is attributed to the arrangements of the Berlin Conference. It is true that many of these narratives remain within the realm of leaks or rumors, but their impact on shaping public opinion does not depend on their accuracy as much as it depends on the absence of official discourse.
Here, the core dilemma becomes evident: when regular governmental information is absent, the public does not wait for the vacuum, but reproduces it through rumor. And when no periodic discourse is presented to explain what is happening, rumor turns into an alternative system of interpretation for reality, and confidence in the official narrative declines in favor of multiple conflicting narratives, each claiming to possess part of the truth.
In such a context, silence no longer remains a neutral choice, but becomes an active element in shaping public opinion.
Within this framework, the issue is not about reviving a historical model as much as it is about redefining the function of political discourse in times of war. A society facing an intense flow of news is not satisfied merely with the presence of leadership in public spaces, but needs a clear periodic discourse that explains decisions and places transformations within their proper context, granting citizens the ability to understand before being asked for patience or engagement.
Trust, according to #Face_of_Truth, is not built on visibility alone, but on the consistency of periodic discourse, clarity of explanation, and stability of political language. Here, the value of discourse lies in being a means of managing public awareness at a moment when certainty is receding. When discourse is absent, rumors advance; when clarity is absent, trust erodes; and unanswered questions become fertile ground for multiple truths instead of multiple opinions, in a context where reality cannot afford to leave truth hostage to leaks.
Wishing you continued health and well-being.
Sunday, May 3, 2026
Shglawi55@gmail.com
#AlBurhan
#AlBurhan_Between_Speech_and_Silence
#Sudan
#War_in_Sudan
#Political_Discourse
#Public_Opinion
#Rumor_and_the_Manufacturing_of_Awareness
#The_State_and_Trusted_Information
#Sudan_Between_Truth_and_Leaks
#Ibrahim_Shaghlawi