The political reality in Sudan suffers from fundamental problems that have manifested themselves in the clear failure—since independence and up to the present—to establish a political formula capable of achieving development and stability. These problems have also been reflected in the continuation of civil wars in different parts of the country, the failure of development projects, weak national loyalty, and the rise of calls for secession, among other negative manifestations. Many observers have argued that the problems and conflicts visible on the surface are rooted in Sudan’s political and institutional structure, which suffers from a number of deficiencies that have negatively affected the country’s overall political performance. Through this article, we seek to clarify the relationship between political structure and the challenges facing governance in Sudan. More specifically, we seek to answer a central question: Has Sudan’s existing political structure contributed to the problems from which the country suffers? Is it currently capable of confronting the challenges facing the country? If not, what reforms are needed to enable it to do so effectively? In fact, the concept of political structure refers to the institutions, political structures, and organizations that collectively constitute the political system. These institutions and structures differ from one country to another depending on the functions of the political system and the prevailing political values and culture in the country concerned. Although political structure is commonly understood as referring to political institutions and organizations, some scholars regard political culture and prevailing social values as an integral part of the political structure, insofar as these values guide institutions and contribute to strengthening the political system and maintaining its stability. In any case, the political structure of a state should not be viewed as a single, rigid entity. Rather, it consists of a number of institutions that work together in an integrated manner to achieve the broader objectives of society. Indeed, some thinkers argue that there is a direct relationship between political effectiveness and performance, on the one hand, and political structure, on the other. A strong, coherent political structure enhances effectiveness and improves political performance. Conversely, a weak and cumbersome political structure reduces effectiveness and undermines political performance. If political structure represents the organizational framework within which all forms of political behavior take place, then a number of institutions can be identified as constituting that structure. These include the state, political parties, civil society, and others. The weaknesses affecting these institutions in Sudan are clear and difficult to overlook. With regard to the Sudanese state, the challenge of building a unified national state—or what is often referred to as the crisis of national integration—has been one of the greatest problems confronting Sudan from independence to the present. Cultural and social factors have interacted with developmental demands to make conflicts in Sudan even more complex, while insurgent movements have emerged in the south, east, and west of the country. As is well known, the relationship among the various groups that constitute the Sudanese national community, as well as the relationship between citizens and the governing authority, forms the primary foundation of the political structure. The stronger and more stable these relationships are, the more cohesive the political structure becomes and the more stable the political system is likely to be. In our view, the starting point for reforming the institution of the state lies in working toward national integration and adopting political pluralism as a fundamental basis of governance in Sudan. (A) Achieving National Integration: Achieving this objective requires the following:

1. Full recognition of Sudan’s ethnic and cultural diversity.
2. Citizenship should be the basis of rights and responsibilities.
3. Enabling different groups to express and preserve their distinct cultural identities.
4. Affirming respect for human rights as stipulated in international treaties and conventions.
5. Achieving sustainable and balanced development and placing it at the core of national development plans.
6. Emphasizing effective decentralized governance and ensuring that the central government does not interfere in the internal affairs of the states.
7. Working to combat political and financial corruption, as well as all other forms of corruption.
8. The media should play a major role in strengthening national unity and condemning violence in all its forms.
9. Emphasizing non-discrimination among citizens on the basis of race, color, language, religion, gender, or any other consideration.

(B) Political Pluralism: In this regard, several key points must be emphasized: Democracy—regardless of the particular form it takes—has become an objective pursued by states around the world, largely because of the failure of authoritarian regimes in many parts of the world and the growing public awareness of political rights, civil liberties, and fundamental freedoms.

2. Many international conventions and treaties affirm political, economic, and social human rights and call for enabling citizens to participate in the governance of their country and to share in its wealth and resources.
3. The realities of the Sudanese context and the evolution of the country’s political challenges reflect a growing awareness of rights and a strong desire for political participation. Any attempt to suppress these aspirations or prevent citizens from exercising them could lead to violence and instability.

As for Sudanese political parties, they emerged during the 1940s. The Ashigga Party was established in 1944, the Umma Party in 1945, the Sudanese Communist Party in 1946, and the Islamic Liberation Movement—the nucleus of the Sudanese Islamic movement—in 1949. Despite the long history of these parties, most of them remain unable to perform the political role expected of them effectively. It is clear that they have not developed sufficiently, either in terms of their intellectual visions and political programs or in terms of their organizational structures. Political scientists use a number of criteria to measure the effectiveness of political parties, including organizational structure, popular support, political programs, leadership, mechanisms of political succession within the party, sources of funding, and other indicators. When these criteria are applied to Sudanese political parties, it becomes apparent that most suffer from fundamental problems such as weak organizational structures, the absence of coherent political programs, and the lack of effective mechanisms for political succession. These shortcomings have, in many cases, prevented the parties from achieving their objectives. In this regard, several important points concerning Sudanese political parties need to be emphasized, including the following:

1. Sudanese political parties suffer from complex problems, some of which are foundational, relating to the circumstances of their establishment and formation, while others are structural, relating to the internal organization and institutional framework of the parties themselves. Nevertheless, the efforts being made to address these problems remain extremely limited.
2. In general, developments within Sudanese political parties are not moving in a direction that inspires optimism about their future. Rather, all indications point to their continued decline and the deepening of their internal crises.
3. It is clear that Sudanese political parties have been unable to agree on common national objectives. Various attempts have been made to bring them together around a minimum common program, but these efforts have produced little tangible result.
4. Sudanese political parties do not appear capable of resolving their funding problems. Financing remains one of the most serious challenges facing these parties, particularly during election periods.

There is no doubt that the weakness of political parties has a direct impact on the country’s political structure. Reforming Sudanese political parties is therefore a key entry point for strengthening and consolidating the political system. For political parties to perform their role effectively and contribute to strengthening the political structure, we believe that they need to adopt a comprehensive set of measures, including the following:

• Promoting democracy within political parties themselves. Sudanese political parties often call for democracy at the national level while democratic practices remain largely absent from their own internal structures and institutions. One clear indication of this is that the leadership of a significant number of the country’s major political parties has remained in control of their parties since the 1960s.
• Political party constitutions, statutes, and internal regulations should clearly define mechanisms for leadership succession and establish fixed term limits for leadership positions that cannot be exceeded.
• Party membership should be open to all citizens without discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, religion, or sect. This would help promote the national character of political parties and contribute to strengthening national unity.
• Party members should conduct their internal relations within a regularly renewed constitutional framework agreed upon by the membership, guaranteeing freedom of expression and the peaceful rotation of leadership within the party

Modern civil society organizations emerged relatively early in Sudan, at the beginning of the twentieth century. This was reflected in the establishment of trade unions, farmers’ organizations, women’s, youth, and student organizations, as well as cultural associations. These organizations played significant roles in the national movement and became actively involved in political life during the struggle against colonial rule. Students, workers, and women all made substantial contributions to this struggle and organized strikes that spread across different parts of the country. Trade unions were expected to remain independent of political forces and to focus their efforts on serving the interests of their members. However, many of these organizations came under the influence of political parties, to the extent that some were transformed from independent professional and sectoral organizations into political party extensions among workers, students, and employees. The rivalry among political parties was consequently reflected within workers’ and students’ organizations in particular, producing negative effects on these sectors. Because of their political affiliations, trade unions lost much of their independence and neutrality, neglected the concerns of workers and students, and became increasingly immersed in political activity. This contributed to a widening gap between these organizations and their grassroots constituencies and, in many cases, led to inconsistencies in their positions as they responded to shifting political developments. Politicization therefore remains one of the most prominent characteristics of Sudanese civil society. In general, the following observations can be made regarding Sudanese civil society organizations:

1. Politicization: As noted earlier, these organizations have become extensions of particular political groups, which has undermined their original purpose and left them vulnerable to political fluctuations and inconsistent positions.
2. Weak or Insufficient Funding: Most of these organizations suffer from serious funding problems. Unless this issue is addressed, they will remain weak and largely ineffective.
3. Lack of Coordination and Networking: Despite the large number of civil society organizations and the similarities in their activities and objectives, coordination and networking among them remain weak.
4. Weak Training and Human Development Programs: The leadership of these organizations still lacks the capacities required to manage their affairs effectively. They therefore need targeted capacity-building and human development programs to strengthen the skills of their leaders and improve overall organizational performance.
5. Lack of Mutual Trust Between Civil Society and State Institutions: On the one hand, some civil society organizations view their primary role as opposing the authorities in power. On the other hand, the government regards some of these organizations as hostile and suspects them of having foreign connections, particularly those working in the field of human rights. This mutual distrust has weakened relations between the two sides and negatively affected the performance of both the government and civil society.

It is, of course, impossible to speak of a democratic system or a strong political structure without effective civil society institutions. However, strengthening civil society so that it can contribute to consolidating the political structure—and thereby help address Sudan’s political challenges—requires several measures. These include full recognition of civil society and its political, social, and economic role; ending the dependency relationship between political parties and civil society organizations; and establishing relations between the two sides on the basis of equality rather than subordination. It is also necessary to address the funding problems that prevent many civil society organizations from performing their expected role by developing sustainable domestic sources of finance that preserve their independence. Mechanisms should also be established to improve coordination and networking among civil society institutions, while greater attention should be given to training and capacity-building programs for civil society leaders. In addition, we believe that trust between civil society and the state must be strengthened in a way that serves major national objectives, and that the leadership of civil society organizations should be selected through regular and periodic elections.