No two people differ over the fact that Sudan is living through a harsh ordeal imposed by the war, its consequences, and the interventions in it, or that the Sudanese citizen is paying the heaviest price today. Anyone walking the streets of Khartoum's three cities sees the enormous scale of the destruction and feels the severity of people's suffering- while feeling at the same time how firmly they hold to the hope that the country will recover and regain its health.
Out of the heart of this suffering comes the initiative of the dialogue preparatory committee: an initiative whose purpose is to prepare and facilitate the Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue rather than monopolize it, and whose task is to bring the parties together on the way to a comprehensive national consensus. Since it began its work this week, the committee has affirmed its openness to everyone, having obtained the guarantees required from the state to facilitate the convening of the dialogue and to protect the participants and their safety.
In its statement and its public remarks, the committee stressed that it is not imposing a ready-made agenda on those attending, but working to bridge the gap between the parties through meetings and consultations, so as to arrive at an agenda they agree upon. Nor does the committee carry predetermined outcomes to dictate to anyone; the participants determine their own outcomes, by consensus.
And although the aim is specifically a dialogue convened inside Sudan, the state will not be the body calling for it, nor the body that sets its agenda or its outcomes. Its role is confined to providing the logistical support and the legal, political, and security guarantees necessary for it to convene in a safe environment. These guarantees have been given legal form through decrees recorded in the official gazette, affording protection to those taking part in the dialogue and to anyone wishing to express an opinion from outside its hall.
The dialogue that is needed is not merely a conference or a political meeting. It is a national process resting on the genuine participation of the various political, civil, and community components, and seeking consensus and the gathering together of what has been scattered. Any regional or international support should likewise assist the Sudanese dialogue rather than substitute for Sudanese decision-making.
What is striking is the scale of the response to the initiative- from the various forces, from the Sudanese street, and on social media, as well as the regional and international interest. The African Union Commission's swift welcome of the initiative, as a dialogue run from inside Sudan and by a committee of its own people, has given this course an important push, particularly with its affirmation of the principles of inclusiveness and of Sudanese ownership and leadership.
But some voices have criticized this position, going so far as to hold that supporting a dialogue in the country's capital amounts to supporting Sudan's partition. Here it is legitimate to ask: how can supporting dialogue in Khartoum, the country's capital, be an entry point to partitioning Sudan? Is holding the dialogue in the capital of the state not an affirmation of its unity and its sovereignty? And conversely, does keeping the capital out of this course, even indirectly, not carry the risk of entrenching the reality of parallel authorities and the notions of partition?
The initiative, in essence, seeks to gather Sudanese around a single table to raise their country's issues and its troubles, beneath a ceiling of clear national fundamentals that protect its sovereignty and its unity.
There are also those who say the dialogue cannot begin before the war stops, and that there is no sense in sitting at a political table while the fighting continues. But making a halt to the war a precondition may in practice mean disabling the political track and leaving the country hostage to military operations and to foreign interventions, while citizens' suffering worsens. It is more useful to see the dialogue as one of the tracks that can help stop the war than as an outcome to be waited for before any dialogue begins.
The war did not arise from nothing. It was preceded by disputes, wrangling, and struggles of exclusion that paralyzed the transitional period and charged the atmosphere, until the brandishing of war rose louder than the voice of reason. Agreement among the political, civil, and community forces on a road map out of the crisis, and on arrangements leading in the end to elections and civilian rule, can therefore create the environment needed to end the war.
And amid a deep crisis of trust, the dialogue need not begin with the most contentious issues. It can begin with what unites Sudanese, in order to build confidence, and then move to the thornier files with deliberation and patience. The consultations should also include women, young people, the displaced, refugees, and Sudanese abroad, so as to reflect the reality of Sudanese diversity.
The deeper significance of the initiative is that the dialogue should take place in the embrace of the homeland rather than in the hotels of foreign capitals, and that Sudanese should hear one another amid their country's suffering rather than from behind walls of distance. The longer the war lasts, the greater the need for Sudanese to recover the reins of their own decision.
Sudan does not need political wrangling at this moment. It needs Sudanese sitting together to talk about its future. If stopping the war is the urgent objective, then building consensus is the road to it; and if what is required is that this be the last of Sudan's wars, that must begin with a comprehensive Sudanese dialogue that imposes no tutelage on anyone and places the interest of the homeland above the interests of the disputants.
Perhaps the most important step toward ending the war is that Sudanese should find, at last, a table with room at its edges for everyone.
