اخبار السودان – وطن نيوز
اخر اخبار السودان اليوم – اخبار السودان العاجلة
W6nnews.com ==== وطن === تاريخ النشر – 2026-06-26 13:04:00
Abdo Al-Hajj – June 23, 2026 The End of the Era of Intellectual and Political Tutelage If the national project, which we discussed in the previous episode, should not be the project of a specific party, group, or government, then the next issue relates to: Who participates in its formulation and construction? Perhaps it is natural that major visions, in earlier stages of Sudan’s history, were formulated by limited circles of politicians, administrators, or intellectual elites. Knowledge was less widespread, means of communication more limited, and opportunities for public participation were much narrower than they are today. This played an important role in certain stages, but it is no longer sufficient in an era in which knowledge has become available to wider sectors, and the possibilities of communication and participation have become more extensive than ever before. The problem has never been the “participation” of elites in creating national perceptions, as that is a natural and indispensable role. Rather, the dilemma lies in the fact that society has often remained a “recipient” of these perceptions rather than a “partner” in formulating them. When people’s participation in building the project weakens, their ability to feel ownership of it, defend it, and continue developing it also weakens. A true national project does not gain its strength from the entity that proposes it, but rather from the extent of society’s participation in its creation and consensus around it. If the nation belongs to all its citizens, then it is natural that its national project also belongs to them. This does not, of course, mean that millions of Sudanese meet in one arena to make decisions, nor does it mean turning public life into chaos without institutions or controls. Modern societies build their visions in a gradual manner, starting from the “base” where people live their daily issues, then the circles of dialogue and consultation expand until common priorities crystallize in the form of a broader national vision. Community dialogue is not a substitute for institutions, but rather it is the soil from which institutions derive their legitimacy and vitality. The citizen does not only regain his role by demanding participation, but also by exercising this role in public debate, in oversight, and in collective thinking about issues that affect his life and the future of his society. This does not mean that every citizen turns into a politician, activist, or devotes himself to public affairs. Societies need the farmer, the worker, the doctor, the teacher, and the engineer, just as they need the politician. Participation means that the right to influence, oversight, and accountability remains available to everyone, and that the citizen is able to express his opinion and defend his interests whenever he wants, and not for these rights to be confiscated or exercised in his name without his knowledge. The citizen as an end: Building the human being through participation. The value of participation is not limited to what it adds to public affairs or to the performance of state institutions, but also extends to what it adds to the citizen himself. Engaging in public debate, exercising oversight, bearing responsibility for choice, and dealing with different opinions are all experiences that contribute to building a person and developing his abilities to think, judge, and appreciate, in a way that expands his awareness and raises his level of awareness of himself, his community, and the environment in which he lives. Through this practice, the citizen gradually moves from the position of recipient of decisions to the position of partner in making them. His confidence in his ability to understand and influence is strengthened, his dependence on political or intellectual guardianship decreases, and his affiliation expands from narrow circles to broader horizons of common national affiliation. Therefore, the citizen is not called to the national project as a means to grant him legitimacy or support him when needed, but rather because it is the basic goal that this project is supposed to serve. A just state is not based on a large number of followers, but rather on free citizens who have the ability to think, participate, and bear responsibility. Hence, participation becomes both a right and a duty. Indeed, because it expresses a person’s dignity, freedom, and development, and a duty because it is one of the means by which he learns to manage his affairs and the affairs of his society. The crisis of representation and the trap of manufactured facades. At this point, one of the most complex issues in the Sudanese experience emerges, which is the issue of representation. The public arena is full of parties, movements, unions, civil administrations, organizations, and numerous alliances, all of which speak to varying degrees on behalf of citizens. But the large number of speakers on behalf of society does not necessarily mean that society itself is present in the decision-making process. This does not detract from the importance of parties or unions; These are necessary tools for any healthy public life, but they remain (means of organization and expression) and are not a substitute for citizens themselves. The true source of legitimacy is the citizen, not the organization to which he belongs. Therefore, the national project should not turn into a negotiating table between organizations regarding sizes, weights, and quotas. What is required is not agreement on how to “share influence,” but rather agreement on “the future” that the Sudanese want to build together. Also, the problem is not solved simply by creating new grassroots bodies. The Sudanese experience has shown that many neighborhood committees and community initiatives have turned, over time, into arenas for competition between organizations, and some forces have sought to control them and use them as tools of influence. What is more dangerous is the blight of facade hatching; Some parties intend to create parallel civil or civil entities to falsify the will of the masses. True participation is not measured by the number of seats that a party gets at the table, but rather by the extent of its ability to reflect the will of the bases it claims to represent. This is why there is an urgent need for free societal platforms based on transparency, deliberation, and openness, such that it is impossible to monopolize or hijack them. Therefore, the value of community platforms is not measured by the number of their names or slogans, but rather by their ability to enable citizens to actually influence the decisions that are made in their name. Expanding the circle of partnership and enhancing awareness. This participation is not complete if it is limited to organized groups or those able to access public platforms. Sudan does not consist only of residents of major cities, or of political elites and intellectuals. There are millions of citizens living in remote villages, displacement and refugee camps, and pastoralist communities who move with the seasons of water and pasture. Some of these people are rarely reached by state institutions, and they may not even feel that they are part of the state or the ongoing discussions about its future. These are not a margin that can be turned to later, but rather they are the heart of the nation and its outskirts. Therefore, the success of any national project is not only measured by its ability to engage learners in cities, but rather by its ability to reach the last citizen in the furthest village, the furthest displacement camp, or the furthest pasture, and provide them with the opportunity to be part of shaping their future. This does not require melting people into one mold or imposing a particular lifestyle on them. The national project is not based on eliminating diversity, but rather on expanding options and providing equal opportunities for everyone. Regardless of their location or background. But we must not forget that the availability of knowledge today is met with a deluge of media misinformation, hate speech, and polarization. A citizen cannot effectively participate in writing the future if his awareness is hijacked by targeted propaganda. Therefore, strengthening the citizen’s critical mind is the first condition for the success of any sound national dialogue. Also, popular participation does not mean that major issues are managed with fleeting emotions or momentary reactions. Rational societies do not replace the guardianship of elites with the guardianship of the public mood, but rather make knowledge and conscious experience at the service of societal dialogue, so that decisions are the result of informed discussion and not merely a response to immediate feelings. This cannot be achieved by relying on the citizen alone or on institutions alone, as knowledge and experience remain an essential part of any national building process, and expanding public participation does not eliminate the need for specialists, but rather makes benefiting from their expertise more important, which requires reconsidering the relationship between elites and society. The elite: from the “guardianship” platform to the “facilitation” role. On the other hand, criticizing the elites’ monopoly on public work does not mean underestimating the importance of knowledge, or being hostile to specialists. Societies cannot dispense with experts, academics, and thinkers, but they need to “redefine their role.” The difference is vast between an elite that sees itself as a “guardian” of society, and an elite that puts its knowledge “in the service of” society. The first deals with citizens as minors who always need someone to think on their behalf, while the second helps people understand the available options, and provides them with the tools and knowledge that enable them to make their own decisions. Therefore, the role of the intellectual or expert does not diminish when he relinquishes guardianship, but rather increases in elevation and importance when he becomes a bridge between knowledge and society instead of positioning himself as a substitute for it. War as a “laboratory” for the national project. Perhaps one of the most important things revealed by the current war is that Sudan possesses potential societal potential that exceeds what many had imagined. When institutions collapsed and the state was unable to carry out its roles, popular initiatives, emergency rooms, and volunteer groups emerged, succeeding in saving lives, providing services, and alleviating the suffering of millions. These experiences were not just passing acts of charity, but rather demonstrated the innate ability of the Sudanese to organize, work collectively, and manage crises outside the traditional frameworks that have monopolized public action for decades. Therefore, the national dialogue is not a project postponed until after the guns are silent; Indeed, its most important seeds have already sprouted amid the rubble of the same suffering. In displacement camps, shelter centers, emergency rooms, and hospices, new and sophisticated forms of cooperation have emerged between Sudanese who were not previously united by political or social frameworks. This lived experience provides us with practical lessons in national solidarity that are greater than what was produced by dozens of conferences and round tables in closed hotel halls. Separating the “vision” from the “pie of power.” However, the success of these experiments does not replace the need to distinguish between two different paths that have often been confused. The dialogue that aims to form a transitional government or address urgent arrangements for sharing power is radically different from the societal dialogue that seeks to build a long-term national vision. The first is concerned with (who rules?), while the second is concerned with (how are we governed?). The first is related to changing political circumstances and power balances, while the second is related to the established constitutional rules that should continue no matter how governments and parties change. When the two paths mix, national dialogues turn into negotiations and quotas over positions, and state-building issues recede to the back rows. Therefore, the national project must remain completely independent and immune from the daily struggle for power, so that it, too, does not turn into a spoil for which political forces compete. Conclusion: The citizen as a maker of the future. This path may seem long, complicated, or far from being achieved in the turbulent reality of Sudan today. There may be some truth to this, as building nations cannot be accomplished by a top-down political decision or a passing conference. However, the difficulty of the path does not mean that it is impossible, especially since many of the other paths that have been tried over the past decades have not succeeded in achieving stability or building the national project that the Sudanese are looking for. The issue is not whether this path is easy, but rather whether the “other alternatives” have succeeded! For decades, the Sudanese have experimented with projects formulated by governments, others imposed by military regimes or armed movements, and initiatives that came packaged with external support. However, none of them succeeded in producing a stable consensus on the shape of the state that the Sudanese want, or on the rules that should govern their relationship with each other. The projects that people participate in building are always more established and immune than those that are imposed on them from above. No one has the complete truth, and no one party has the right to shape the future of Sudan on behalf of the Sudanese. Respecting the will of citizens does not mean assuming that they will not make mistakes. All societies learn through experience, review, and course correction. However, society’s right to learn from its choices and mistakes remains healthier and more sustainable than imposing choices on it in the name of experience, wisdom, or possession of absolute truth. Perhaps the greatest obstacle to all of this is the feeling of large segments of citizens that politics “does not concern them” or that their participation will not change anything; This is a justified feeling in light of the legacy of marginalization. But politics is never absent from anyone’s life; Bread, education, medicine, and security are directly affected by decisions made in the name of society. Even those who choose isolation remain dismayed by the consequences of what is happening. Perhaps this process begins with smaller steps than we imagine. Through neighborhood discussions, community forums, voluntary initiatives, and open dialogue spaces in which people learn to listen to each other, think jointly about their public affairs, and exercise their right to participate in a practical and gradual manner. If the previous episode concluded that equal citizenship is the basis of the national project, this episode concludes that the citizen himself is the owner of this project and its primary maker. The national project does not begin in the great halls, but rather begins when the citizen regains his confidence in his ability to influence, and when he transforms from a “recipient” of decisions to an authentic “partner” in making them. When the citizen becomes a real partner in making the national project, the issue naturally moves to another level. A level related to the strict rules that regulate this partnership, protect it from the tyranny of tyranny, and ensure its continuity across generations. And here the talk begins about the “constitution”… not as a rigid legal document, but as the supreme “national partnership contract”. author
