Recently, there has been growing discussion about the absence of a Sudanese national project. Many have argued that this absence lies behind the political conflicts, economic confusion, social deterioration, and instability in foreign relations that Sudan continues to experience. In their view, had Sudan possessed a national project, it would have been better able to confront its crises and rise to a position of strength and prosperity. Reality, however, suggests that the Sudanese national project has always been present and will continue to be so, because a national project is not merely a political agreement or a set of constitutional provisions collected in a document called a “national project.” The distinguished legal scholar Tariq al-Bishri argues that a national project is derived from the intellectual, political, and social movement of a society at a particular historical stage. Although a national project should provide answers to the major national questions, it does not necessarily require complete consensus over every detail of its content, objectives, mechanisms, and priorities. Rather, it refers to the broad goals that society seeks to achieve, on the one hand, and its general conception of how those goals should be pursued, on the other. Differences may still exist over the precise objectives and the most appropriate means of achieving them. In other words, a national project always seeks to respond to the human, social, economic, and political needs of a particular generation at a particular time, without requiring full agreement among all members of that generation on every detail. As al-Bishri puts it, it is “a framework capable of accommodating differences within it.” This makes continuous dialogue among the components of society essential. The national project itself is also capable of evolving and being reshaped in accordance with the conditions of each historical phase. During colonial rule, for example, the minimum objective of the national project was liberation from colonial domination. Under national governments, national projects came to reflect the existential and fundamental concerns of the people across political, social, economic, and cultural spheres. A national project is not prepared by an individual, a social body, or a government according to its own vision and then imposed on society. Nor is it simply a political project that expresses the aspirations of a particular social class or political party, or a plan designed and imposed from above. Rather, it is derived from the political, economic, and social realities of the state, from the orientations of its active forces and groups, and from those groups’ perceptions of present challenges and how they should be addressed. At its early stages, a national project may suffer from contradictions and a lack of coherence. Over time, however, and through continuous dialogue and interaction among social and political components, these contradictions may weaken or disappear. The longer a national project develops, and the more deeply it is debated and tested through interaction, the more its areas of contradiction tend to diminish and the more its features of coherence and integration become visible. There is therefore no substitute for continuous dialogue and sustained societal discussion in shaping a national project. The recent emphasis on the supposed absence of a Sudanese national project is largely a result of the profound transformations the country has undergone over the past three decades. The political arena has changed dramatically. Parties that dominated political life for long periods have either disappeared or nearly vanished, while new parties have emerged seeking to replace or compete with them for public support. Many civil society organizations have also emerged and now exert a visible influence on social and political life. New generations have come of age with aspirations and perceptions that differ from those of earlier generations. Regional armed movements emerged in different parts of the country, later laid down their weapons, and are now preparing to engage in political competition. At the international level, Sudan has increasingly become part of the global political agenda, at times being viewed as a potential security threat associated with extremist groups, while simultaneously being seen as a country rich in natural resources, offering profitable investment opportunities and occupying a strategically important location contested by regional and international powers. The situation has been further complicated by the evident difficulties facing the democratic transition after the fall of Omar al-Bashir’s government, as well as by intense conflicts among Sudanese political forces with divergent visions, interests, and approaches to political practice. As a result, the Sudanese political landscape has appeared entirely new, ambiguous, and open to speculation, oscillating between fear and hope. This has intensified debate over a national project that, if properly articulated, could protect Sudan from internal fragmentation and division and shield it from external ambitions. In reality, however, Sudanese political thought has never ceased engaging with these challenges or considering ways to address them. It can even be argued that Sudanese people are more aware than many other societies of the obstacles confronting them and the opportunities available to them. They understand their sources of strength and weakness and possess clear perceptions of how to deal with them. What they have lacked, however, is political leadership capable of unleashing their potential, making effective use of their awareness, protecting their resources, and planning for their future. From this perspective, the national project has never truly been absent at any stage of Sudanese history. Rather, it has continued to evolve and become clearer with each successive phase. The slogans of the Sudanese revolution—freedom, peace, and justice—demonstrated considerable clarity of vision and reaffirmed the existence and coherence of the Sudanese national project. Because the national project represents the collective understanding of the national community regarding the challenges it faces and the means and mechanisms for addressing them, individuals and institutions may differ in how they define its features. These differences arise from the different perspectives from which the national project is viewed. Consequently, the very description of its key characteristics may itself become a subject of debate and disagreement. If we attempt to highlight what we regard as the most important features of this project, while recognizing that this reflects a particular perspective and may differ from the views of others, we can say that one of its central elements is broad agreement on a democratic system that guarantees freedom in its broadest sense, achieves justice, preserves human dignity, ensures equality, combats corruption, upholds the rule of law, and elevates the values of transparency and accountability. Another central feature is broad agreement on the importance of peace founded on equality and justice and capable of guaranteeing balanced and sustainable development. It is also reflected in the deeply rooted popular belief in the need for balanced foreign relations based on equality among states and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. These, in our view, are some of the foundations of the Sudanese national project, although others may add further dimensions. They are already clearly present in the minds of many Sudanese people and have been reflected in constitutional texts, peace agreements signed over recent decades, and in political and social practices. Sudanese people may disagree over the details of these principles and the mechanisms for translating them into reality. Yet such differences, which reflect diversity of opinion and political position, are among the most important characteristics of a healthy national project. They are indicators of vitality, dynamism, and political health. Stability is not always evidence of well-being, for conditions may remain stable while being fundamentally flawed. As the saying goes, “stagnant water becomes foul.” Effective and successful political and social systems are therefore always characterized by movement within them: continuous dialogue, uninterrupted debate, and ongoing bargaining and compromise. From this perspective, the fundamental source of Sudan’s problems does not lie in the absence of a national project, but rather in the absence of political will, the stagnation of civil society, and the underdevelopment of political parties. This helps explain why Sudanese citizens have often appeared politically more advanced than the parties, political forces, and civil organizations that claim to represent them. The claim that Sudan’s deteriorating conditions are primarily the result of the absence of a national project has never been convincingly demonstrated. Yet it has become a convenient excuse used by political forces to justify their shortcomings and failures, despite the fact that they themselves would bear responsibility for identifying and clarifying such a project if it were truly absent. We believe, however, that the Sudanese national project has never disappeared and never will. It is present, but unfortunately it is constantly spoken of as though it were absent. What is needed today, therefore, is not to invent a national project, because it already exists. The greater absence is the political will necessary to transform that project into a living reality. The task now is to shed light on the national project, clarify its main features, build the broadest possible consensus around its details and priorities, and then direct collective efforts toward its implementation. This responsibility must be shared by the political authorities, political parties, civil society, the media, educational institutions, and all sectors of Sudanese society.