Many Sudanese agree that intra-Sudanese dialogue constitutes the most realistic path for rescuing the country from its current crisis. After years of polarization and division, followed by a war that deepened the wounds and widened the circle of destruction and displacement, it has become clear that continuing to bet on exclusion will only prolong the crisis and complicate the prospects of reaching sustainable peace.
Any viable solution must spring from within - from the Sudanese themselves, with the role of the regional and international communities confined to support, facilitation, and backing. It is not merely a matter of national sovereignty; that is also a fundamental requisite for the success of any political settlement.
Lasting stability can only be achieved through a political process that reflects Sudan’s reality in all of its complexity and puts the interests of the Sudanese people above those of any other party. Sustainable peace, then, cannot be the product of deals among a narrow elite. It must be built on genuine, inclusive dialogue among the active political, civil, and social forces - dialogue that allows for the emergence of a broad national consensus on the future of the state and its system of governance. To that end, dialogue must become the primary mechanism for managing political differences, whether in forming a transitional government or in drawing the roadmap toward restoring constitutional order.
The principal obstacle on this path is the intransigence of certain parties in their insistence on positions that ignore the realities and complexities of the crisis. The politics of exclusion was among the main reasons that the transition faltered, and it helped create the climate that ended in war. Today, the same mindset continues to obstruct meaningful dialogue because exclusion does not produce partnership; it breeds only more division and suspicion.
Accordingly, all political forces must commit to the idea that dialogue is the only way out of the crisis. The very idea of exclusion fundamentally contradicts the concept of "inclusive dialogue" and the slogan of "intra-Sudanese dialogue." Moreover, no political force has a popular mandate entitling it to decide who participates in political life and who is shut out. Authority belongs to the Sudanese people alone, through free and fair elections, and political forces’ job is to compete within the framework of democratic rules, not to exclude rivals.
Experience has shown that the "all or nothing" mentality produces no solutions; it leads everyone toward a dead end. The question all sides should put to themselves is this: can a stable, democratic state be built on a mindset of exclusion? The answer seems clear in light of Sudan's own experience, which confirms that any political process founded on exclusion carries within it the seeds of a new crisis, however successful it may appear at the outset.
Genuine dialogue should therefore be inclusive, but grounded, at the same time, in clear principles binding on all participants. Inclusiveness does not mean the absence of ground rules; it means the door to participation stands open to everyone who accepts the foundations of the political process and abides by them. Chief among: commitment to the peaceful, democratic transfer of power; preservation of Sudan's unity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; protection of state institutions; safeguarding the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law; and justice and accountability for war crimes, corruption, and abuses with an emphasis on the cardinal principle of confining weapons to the hands of the state, so that no armed forces exist outside the framework of the national military institution.
Proceeding from these principles, dialogue could lay the groundwork for restoring constitutional governance and building a stable political order founded an agreement on the rules of governance for the transitional period, the establishment of an independent electoral commission, the adoption of a charter of rights and freedoms, the regulation of party life, and the preparation of a credible electoral register, leading to free and fair elections that enable the Sudanese people to choose who governs them, with the possibility of soliciting international supervision to bolster confidence in the electoral process.
The dialogue should also address the roots of the historical crises that have long fed instability and settle the constitutional underpinning for the transitional period. Since drafting a permanent constitution is not feasible at this stage, being the prerogative of an elected parliament, reviving the 2005 Interim Constitution, with whatever amendments necessary, may offer a practical, temporary solution until elected institutions are in place. No less important is the development of a national vision for reconstruction, economic recovery, and rebuilding the state institutions and communities that the war has torn apart.
The success of intra-Sudanese dialogue will not be measured by the mere fact of its convening, but by its capacity to produce a broad national consensus that consolidates a lasting peace and a stable state. Sudan will not emerge from its crisis through dictates from abroad, but through the will of its own people, and through honest dialogue that places the nation's interest above partisan considerations and narrow wagers.
