Is it Time for the Sudanese Elite to Reclaim their Role in Saving the Country?

By: Ramadan Ahmed

I assume that the absence of the intellectual elite from the political scene has allowed actors behind the scenes to implement their agendas. I believe that the time has come for the Sudanese intellectual elite to unite in their various orientations to save the country from the brink of disaster. The good news is that despite the absence of politics and the dominant presence of the rifle, the level of public awareness will make the task of the hidden agenda actors difficult, if not impossible. This is because playing from behind the scenes has become exposed, depriving local, regional, and perhaps even international players of the opportunity to control and influence the scene according to their desires.

The ongoing war in Sudan itself is one of the manifestations of the scene’s defiance against the hidden actors. I believe that the greatest responsibility lies with the intellectual elite to play an advanced, enlightening role in the post-war period. There are necessary and urgent requirements that must be agreed upon by the intellectual elite of various intellectual orientations, including:

1. Removing the effects of political turmoil that characterised the transitional period, eliminating political polarisation, name-calling, and infighting over nothing.

2. Establishing new foundations for political practice based on free competition and presenting the best, ultimately leading to cooperation and collaboration, not conflict and seeking to eliminate the other.

3. Promoting a culture of democracy based on the notion that differing opinions are complementary rather than adversarial and that citizenship is the basis of rights and duties, not partisan, tribal, or regional affiliation. Citizenship, in the context of the state, is an independent value separate from any affiliation other than to the nation. This value increases as the citizen gains capabilities, skills, and knowledge to contribute to the advancement and prosperity of the state.

4. Crafting a comprehensive national project in which every citizen sees themselves authentically, regardless of their field of specialisation or interests. A project that harnesses the country’s resources to achieve its citizens’ material and cultural well-being.

5. Building a state of law and institutions that does not allow taking decisions on individual, elitist, or regional grounds, a state that gives substantial weight to institutions and holds individuals accountable regardless of their status, with a special place for scholars and experts. Building a state of institutions means complete transparency in managing public affairs, including employment in public institutions, transparency in decision-making in the state, and managing public funds.

6. Establishing new foundations for peaceful power rotation based on the political weights of parties and their developmental programs, away from any form of political manipulation or military coups, with an emphasis on keeping political activity away from polarisation and demonisation of opponents.

7. Formulating a population policy that ensures diversity management so that every citizen feels included in the state regardless of their skin colour, ethnicity, or tribe, reinforcing the sense of belonging. This sense of belonging prevents the outbreak of rebellions from time to time.

These seven points represent the role entrusted to the intellectual elite, who must represent the interests of the citizens rather than the conflicting political forces vying for power. The engagement of the intellectual elite in their role will make the task of the hidden agenda actors difficult, if not impossible. The increased public awareness, thanks to social media, will make the task of the intellectual elite easier and more feasible. I hope to emphasise the importance of the role of the intellectual class in the coming period, the post-war era.

This importance is confirmed based on the conviction entrenched through close monitoring of the double discourse emanating from Western countries and comparing it with actions on the ground. The conclusion is that Western countries, as much as they call for democracy and human rights, prevent the establishment of democracy in Muslim countries, especially outside the Western sphere, because of their full loyalty to Western interests at the expense of national interests.

The Sudanese intellectual elite needs to emphasise the country’s independence, reject external intervention in any form, and prevent the use of external forces against local opponents. Here, I am not calling for or supporting anti-Western discourse, which opportunists often exploit. Rather, I am calling for focusing on the seven points I have mentioned, with the possibility of cooperation with the outside world based on the country’s interests. In conclusion, the absence of the Sudanese intellectual elite from the political scene has paved the way for a wide-ranging populist and polarising discourse that has led to the ongoing war. Unless there is intervention from the intellectual elite to change the discourse to one that mobilises society in a vibrant intellectual movement to spread the values of national unity, raise aspirations, and instil hope for a better future for all of us, a new populist discourse opposed to the previous populist discourse will likely emerge. We will remain in the same place. External players will continue to play a significant role in thwarting any genuine efforts to advance the country politically, culturally, and economically.