The Sudanese people are men, women, and children residing in Sudan, and sovereignty belongs to them. We have stated that our democratic system will serve as a means to realize this sovereignty for the people. Thus, from the outset, we advocate for popular democracy, which we define as governance by the people, through the people, for the benefit of the people.
We recognize that achieving this is a difficult task, as it requires two conditions:
1. Decisions regarding the management of state affairs must be made with the consensus of all citizens.
2. All citizens must actively participate in exercising sovereignty within the state, so that the rulers are, in essence, the ruled.
While these conditions are practically impossible to fulfill, we can always strive toward them through representative democracy, semi-direct democracy, and, ultimately, direct democracy. It is true that we Sudanese will begin at the bottom of the ladder, but there is no shame in that, provided that our steps of progress consciously and systematically ascend toward the top. By the bottom of the ladder, we mean representative democracy.
It is important to understand that even representative democracy - as a form of governance in which the parliamentary majority represents the majority of the people, and parliament as a whole represents the population as a whole - is not fully realized in practice. This is due to two reasons:
1. Not all members of the population participate in elections, such as children, youth under the age of eighteen, and others.
2. Parliament may consist of a majority that was elected by voters who, in reality, represent a minority of the total electorate.
Additionally, parliamentary sessions are often deemed valid if attended by an absolute majority of members, and decisions are frequently considered legally binding if approved by half of the members present plus one.
Our consolation is that, even when we begin with this basic level of representative democracy - where some parliamentary representatives may be elected indirectly (if necessary) - this starting point is merely a first step toward achieving direct democracy. Direct democracy will remain our ultimate collective goal, as it is the only system that fully guarantees respect for individual freedom. Suffice it to say that when the individual submits to the government, they are, in fact, submitting to the laws and decisions that they themselves previously enacted and approved.
Consensus - which is essential for direct democracy - will be achieved as proper education and authentic political awareness are disseminated. This will strengthen and refine the thinking of citizens, bringing their views closer to one another on major issues.
The least we can start with now is that our social system should only be in conflict with the will of the minority. Over time, as we progress, this minority will diminish, and we will eventually reach consensus. However, wherever a minority exists, regardless of its size, it must retain full rights and freedom to oppose through democratic means.
It is crucial to acknowledge that, no matter how underdeveloped some regions of Sudan may be, the only way to nurture our people is by granting them the opportunity to fully experience governance. Only through direct practice in managing their affairs will they learn. We must therefore recognize their complete right to monitor the actions of both governors and representatives.
The people must have the right to summon their representatives for accountability regarding their delegation of authority, or to terminate their membership in the legislative council and send others to take on the honorable responsibility of representing them. Furthermore, the people must have the right to dissolve parliament before the end of its legislative term, and no entity other than the people may exercise this right.
Initially, this right will be exercised through the legislative councils of the states. If three councils vote to demand the dissolution of the parliament, the president will issue an order to that effect, and a new parliament must be elected within a maximum of three months. As the people advance, they will exercise their right to dissolve the parliament through general referenda. The constitution will specify the procedures to be followed in such cases.
The people have the right to monitor the actions of public officials and to amend the constitution through general referenda or their parliamentary representatives. They also have the right to propose laws, and the constitution will outline the procedures for this. Furthermore, the people may challenge the laws issued by parliament, in terms of their constitutionality, or in terms of whether they fulfill the intended wisdom behind the legislation.
The people's oversight of governance includes two aspects: Oversight of actions by officials that fall under their discretionary authority, which are not governed by specific legal rules. In these cases, officials enjoy broad freedom in selecting the means and timing for implementing their decisions.
Oversight of actions bound by specific legal restrictions established prior to their execution.
There is a sensitive and delicate matter concerning the actions of rulers, and that is the judiciary. While we wish to grant the people the right to monitor the judiciary, we must exercise caution at the outset to ensure that this right is not exercised in a way that interferes with the independence of this vital institution. Therefore, we believe that public discussion of matters before the judiciary should not take place until the judiciary has issued its ruling on them.
Moreover, any objection by the people to a judicial ruling must be limited to submitting their viewpoint to the Chief Justice, who will then issue a statement regarding their objection. The Chief Justice’s statement shall be decisive in such matters.
Initially, public oversight of judicial actions should be limited to examining whether the issued rulings align with specific, established legal rules. As the people progress and public opinion becomes more enlightened, they will be able to oversee the judiciary in terms of the wisdom behind judicial procedures—determining whether such procedures serve both the individual and the community simultaneously.
To ensure that judicial oversight contributes to educating public opinion, the judiciary should be entrusted with reviewing the constitutionality of laws. This task should be assigned to both ordinary judges and a special court called the Constitutional Court of Justice.
This judicial oversight is further justified by an important consideration: the respect for and protection of individual rights against legislative abuse.
Additionally, public oversight of governmental actions will only have a meaningful effect in protecting individuals and ensuring their personal freedom if administrative courts are organized in such a way that individuals can file lawsuits against government actions or administrative decisions that harm their rights and freedoms, particularly when such actions violate the law.
To empower public oversight, all actions by officials within government bodies must be transparent. Without transparency, oversight becomes impossible, and democracy ceases to function. Transparency is not only essential for educating public opinion but is also a prerequisite for achieving democratic governance, which can only exist when enlightened public opinion monitors the rulers and compels them to act in accordance with the law.
Indeed, this transparency also compels citizens to become informed and concerned about their affairs, fostering a well-rounded general education that alone prepares them to make good use of the voting ballot, which is the fundamental strength of democratic governance.
Moreover, the principle of transparency cannot be considered effective unless the means of its implementation are organized - such as the press, public meetings, cultural clubs, radio, cinema, theater, and television, etc. Such platforms ensure that citizens are informed about government actions while these actions are still in development, enabling them to participate by offering feedback, support, or opposition that may guide officials and help them assess whether their actions align with or deviate from the will of the public.
These rights may seem excessive for a population as primitive as the Sudanese people, particularly in rural regions. However, there is no other proper way to advance a people except by confronting them with their challenges and granting them the opportunity to learn from their mistakes. For that to happen, all branches of government must be organized to support this goal. Hence, legislators, judges, administrators, and law enforcement officers must operate transparently, remain accessible, and aim to educate and uplift the people rather than suppress or humiliate them.
Legislation, in particular, must be conscious and wise, and it must be based on balancing the individual's need for absolute personal freedom with the community's need for comprehensive social justice. Neither of these needs should be sacrificed for the other.
There is a claim, often used with ulterior motives, that a primitive people must first be educated before they are entitled to exercise sovereignty. This reasoning serves as an excuse for tyranny. The truth is that people do indeed need education. However, absolute rule does not educate them as free individuals; rather, it raises them as slaves. Such governance does not prepare them for democracy, but instead conditions them for submission and obedience.
We must draw attention to the devastating danger inherent in this approach, and we must also affirm that there is no path to educating any people in the ways of freedom except by confronting them with their own problems and assisting them in understanding and solving those problems themselves. Only through this process can their progress steadily advance toward achieving direct democracy.