School of Principle and the Logic of Spoils..

Face of the Truth | Ibrahim Shaglawi

Between Suad Al-Fatih and Fatima Ahmed Ibrahim extends a rare space in Sudan’s political memory—a space measured not only by positions taken, but by the two women’s ability to transform female presence into a force of moral and political pressure within the structure of partisan political work. These figures were not merely symbols; they were living standards for public action.

Armed with conviction and will, they proved that women can redefine politics and reshape the ceiling of public responsibility.

Suad Al-Fatih Muhammad Al-Badawi (1932–2022) was a pioneering Sudanese academic and parliamentarian who led a long educational and political journey that included serving as Presidential Advisor for Women and Children’s Affairs and as a member of parliament. She was known for her sharpness and courage in confronting corruption and defending the values of Sharia and social justice, and she was a prominent voice in supporting education and women’s empowerment.

Suad Al-Fatih emerged in critical parliamentary moments as a discordant voice within the system of comfortable consensus. Her refusal to pass the interest-based loan for the Merowe Dam was not merely a jurisprudential position, but a political act that reopened the old question about the limits of pragmatism within systems of Islamic reference. She understood that concessions on major issues often begin through the gateway of “the jurisprudence of necessity,” and that when institutions lose their moral sensitivity, they gradually lose the public’s trust.

This stance reveals one of the structural paradoxes in the Sudanese experience: forces that raised Islamic slogans found themselves, under the pressures of the state and the demands of governance, inclined toward middle-ground solutions. Here precisely lies the importance of a dissenting voice from within the same intellectual house—a voice that reminds us that ideological legitimacy is not sustained by slogans but by consistency between word and deed.

Suad Al-Fatih practiced the role of the “critical conscience” within the National Congress Party and within parliament—a rare role in Sudanese parties and regional parliaments, where party discipline usually overrides individual independence.

In contrast, Fatima Ahmed Ibrahim (1933–2017) embodied another model of political steadfastness, from the angle of defending civil rights and popular representation.

Her history since her election as the first female parliamentarian in the Middle East in 1965 reveals a personality that understood politics not merely as the management of power, but as a living representation of people’s suffering. She staged a sit-in in front of the opposition meeting in Cairo in 1998 to deliver a clear message about the meaning of legitimacy: represent the people without fear, and do not submit to dictates, patronage, or external dependency. When she cried out, “Is this democracy?” in protest against partisan practices, she was pointing to a chronic illness in Sudanese political life: the monopolization of decision-making within narrow circles—whether in power or in opposition—and the exclusion of dissenters.

Placing these two experiences today within the context of the transformations that followed 2019 reveals the depth of the crisis our country is experiencing. The scene that followed the fall of Bashir’s regime showed that the collapse was not merely a struggle for power, but a gradual slide from the concept of the state to the concept of spoils. The crisis began when parties failed to move from the logic of rivalry to the logic of the state.

The slogans of the revolution, justice, and democracy were raised, but practical conduct quickly slipped toward exclusion instead of legal accountability. The rule of law was damaged, and citizens’ trust—especially among youth aspiring for change—eroded.

Legitimacy was then emptied of its substance, as the transitional period continued without elections, and political forces treated the transformations as spoils to be managed with the mentality of a covetous victor rather than that of a responsible partner. This coincided with the political normalization of arms outside state institutions, which eroded the state’s monopoly on violence and later paved the way for the April 2023 coup—ambitious for power without mandate and aligned with external ambitions—thus transforming the conflict into a comprehensive war.

As calls for exclusion and political classification of certain forces escalated, and counter-positions filled with accusations increased, public discourse slid into a zero-sum equation: cancellation versus treason.

Meanwhile, civilian blood is lost between two competing narratives, the idea of the state weakens, and internal division becomes a gateway for external exploitation driven by regional and international interests.

The comparison between Suad Al-Fatih and Fatima Ibrahim reveals that Sudan produced two feminist schools in politics: a conservative ethical school represented by the former, which sees reform from within the religious reference and state institutions; and a progressive one embodied by the latter, rooted in social justice and popular representation.

Despite their ideological divergence—Islamist and Communist—the common denominator was their courage in confronting abuses and gray-zone positions within institutions dominated by rigid partisan character and tactical political deals, along with their commitment to bearing responsibility for their actions toward society.

Post-2019 developments reveal a complete collapse of the logic of the social contract. Legal institutions were replaced by exclusion, legitimacy was emptied of meaning, and militias outside the state were used as tools of pressure—leading to the erosion of national decision-making sovereignty. In this context, the legacy of earlier female leaders becomes a critical benchmark for understanding today’s impasse, highlighting the difference between a generation that dealt with power according to principles and a generation dominated by the logic of interests and spoils.

According to #Face_of_the_Truth, the current Sudanese crisis is not a crisis of individuals but a crisis of political culture that has yet to grasp the meaning of the state or the logic of the social contract—a culture that sees the outside as support, exclusion as a solution, and conspiracy as a substitute for productive political action. The way out of this tunnel will only come through a shift from zero-sum rivalry to national contracting politics, where disputes are managed within the , the people are the ultimate arbiter, and the state regains its sovereignty and values—away from the logic of spoils and closer to the school of principle embodied by figures such as Suad Al-Fatih and Fatima Ahmed Ibrahim. We ask God to grant them mercy, forgiveness, and acceptance in the gardens of Paradise.

Wishing you continued health and well-being.