The Face of Truth: Government of Judges

Ibrahim Shglawi

During our university years, when politics was studied with the passion of philosophy, a group of friends and I used to call ourselves “The Peripatetic Pioneers,” inspired by Aristotle’s school, the pioneer of realistic philosophy, which made free thinking and critical reasoning a gateway to understanding politics, the state, and society.

At that time, it seemed to us that the system closest to justice was one led by judges, because their profession is founded on discipline, neutrality, integrity, and respect for the law.

As I revisit those vivid memories today, the old question returns to me: what if the state were governed with the mindset of the judiciary rather than the mentality of political dominance? What if the standard of governance became justice, integrity, and accountability, instead of influence and political appeasement?

Human experience has known what is referred to as the “Government of Judges,” a political and legal concept that emerged in France at the beginning of the twentieth century to describe the expansion of judicial authority into direct influence over decision-making and governance.

This later became more evident in the United States of America, where the Supreme Court evolved into a force capable of suspending presidential and congressional decisions and reshaping political life. Yet the essence of the idea was never truly a call for judges to rule, but rather a search for a state governed by the values of justice and institutional discipline, where power is subjected to strict oversight.

From this perspective, Sudan’s crises today appear closer to being a crisis of the absence of the “judicial mindset” within government — meaning the absence of a state that regulates its performance according to standards of justice, transparency, and the rule of law. The general scene after the war reveals not only weak services or lack of oversight, but also the decline of the very idea of the state itself as an initiator of solutions, a guardian of livelihoods, and an institution of social protection.

When the administration of Omdurman Maternity Hospital “Al-Dayat” is compelled to announce its intention to provide emergency services free of charge due to the rising deaths of mothers and children and the inability of citizens to afford treatment costs, the matter goes beyond a humanitarian initiative and becomes a harsh indication of a distorted philosophy of governance.

Journalist Dalia Elias reported in Al-Karama newspaper statements from the hospital director regarding the administration’s efforts to seek “smart partnerships” to provide childbirth and emergency services free of charge, after many families became unable to access medical treatment because of poverty. Such painful news stands as testimony to the retreat of the state’s natural role in protecting the right to life and healthcare.

Therefore, it was not surprising that the public opinion poll announced last week by the Arab Experts Center for Press Services and Public Opinion Studies revealed widespread anger over escalating government fees and levies, after the majority of respondents acknowledged that financial burdens had exceeded citizens’ capacities and weighed heavily on their ability to secure healthcare, education, and essential services. Here the paradox becomes evident: a state unable to build a productive economy resorts to increasing fees and levies, leaving citizens and society to pay the price for this failure from their daily livelihoods.

The crisis is no longer merely economic; it has come to touch the very essence of social justice, which Prime Minister Dr. Kamil Idris pledged to uphold within the “Government of Hope” program upon assuming office. When medical treatment becomes a burden threatening patients’ lives, education becomes a dream weighing heavily on families, and transport fees and levies are reflected in the prices of food and basic commodities, the citizen no longer feels the presence of a state alleviating suffering, but rather an authority transferring its crises into the pockets and daily livelihoods of the people.

Thus, citizens are transformed from partners in building the nation into bearers of the recurring costs of governmental failure.

Anyone observing the Sudanese scene notices that the decline is no longer confined to the economy and services, but has extended to weak oversight over essential facilities. The incident involving the ferry “Al-Joudi” last week during its journey from Jeddah to Sawakin, which nearly endangered the lives of around 700 passengers, exposes a clear failure in safety procedures. Until now, no news has emerged regarding an investigation or accountability for the responsible authorities, reinforcing the feeling that such incidents are often buried without meaningful accountability amid the accumulation of crises and hardships.

In the same context, the appearance of Prime Minister Dr. Kamil Idris and Minister of Culture and Information Khalid Al-Aiser being carried on shoulders during meetings with the Sudanese community in London and Manchester sparked widespread debate regarding the image of the state and the prestige of government amid war and the collapse of living conditions and services. Media reactions reflected the sensitivity of the public toward the symbolism of authority and the dignity of government, while such scenes, within the Sudanese context burdened by crises, are viewed as disconnected from the reality of people and their daily suffering rather than expressions of appreciation and welcome.

In political analysis, according to #The_Face_of_Truth, these scattered incidents — from the healthcare crisis and levies, to the absence of oversight over transport and services, and the weakness in performance — express a real crisis tied to the absence of the state from people’s lives. States do not collapse through war alone, but also when the balance between authority and oversight, between decision and responsibility, is disrupted, and when rulers lose connection with the suffering of citizens.

Therefore, Sudan needs to restore the philosophy of governance: a state managed with the mindset of duty and justice, drawing upon judicial values as a standard for discipline and fairness. Thus, the “Government of Judges” remains an aspiration for a state governed by law, where citizens’ dignity is protected and the value of responsibility is upheld.

Stay well and healthy.

Sunday, May 24, 2026

Shglawi55@gmail.