Religion and State

Programmatic parties differ from others in that they propose specific programs they seek to implement and do not claim to have answers to all the posed questions, nor do they present a comprehensive perspective that can answer all philosophical and theoretical questions. The last point is particularly relevant when the party transcends ideologies.

It should be noted here the main difference between the concept of programmatic parties and the concept of trans-ideology clearly. A programmatic party can be based on a specific ideology that guides or directs its programs, but it seeks to implement specific programs inspired by its ideology and does not necessarily aim to lead the state with all its tools according to its ideology. On the other hand, trans-ideological systems recognize the differences between the propositions of various ideologies and accept this difference within an implicit framework that is non-exclusionary. They do not adopt any ideology institutionally but build their programs according to the necessities of reality, primarily guided by dialogue, both internally within their components and externally in society as a whole by involving stakeholders and specialists.

Our philosophy in political work is based on finding solutions to the lived problems of citizens, such as providing electricity, water, health services, and education in both quantity and quality, as well as roads and other infrastructure, and food security, through tools that transcend ideologies. We believe that the existence of a constitutional text referring to sources of legislation or a constitutional text referring to Sharia does not negatively or positively affect the provision of bread, nor does it affect its price, the availability of health services, or ease of access to them. It also does not contribute to increasing the country's agricultural productivity to ensure food security, nor does it affect the state's ability to export in order to support its economy. Furthermore, the presence of this text in the constitution did not prevent officials in the former Salvation regime, nor the May regime before it, as well as during the democratic period of 1986-1989, from corruption, nor did it reduce it. We believe that the absence of the text will also not negatively or positively affect all of this.

The political elite in Sudan, both right and left, believe that one of their top priorities is the issue of Sharia or the relationship between religion and the state. Meanwhile, today in Sudan, there are 2.4 million children who have not attended any school at all, and 41% of the population do not have access to safe drinking water or have no water at all in their living areas. Additionally, 61.5% of the population do not use electricity because it does not reach them.

The belief of traditional parties and political forces in Sudan that the essence of political differences lies in the issue of religion and state is one of the main reasons that has led to the currently failed state in Sudan. In fact, the May coup was driven significantly by this issue, and the failure of multiple alliances during the third democracy (1986-1989) was also rooted in this issue. Moreover, the Salvation regime itself was propelled by this very issue to carry out its infamous coup. None of the issues of development and services (education, health, electricity, water, etc.) were at the top of the political priorities of any of the parties or political forces during these periods.

We believe that the essence of politics is how the state is managed for the benefit of the citizen (providing the aforementioned services). The elected politician is an employee whom the people have hired to primarily deliver these services and manage the country's resources for this purpose. Therefore, a politician who seeks to be elected must address the citizens with detailed plans to provide these services to all citizens, how they will be funded, how their continuity will be maintained, and how they will strive to improve their quality if they already exist.

The above does not in any way imply our belief in the unimportance of legislation; rather, it means that as a programmatic party that transcends ideologies, we strive to provide continuous improvement in the economic and service conditions of citizens through all possible and available democratic and legal means. This is because the reality of society shapes its consciousness and thus improves its future, creating a new reality for the better. In short, we believe that development is what creates awareness, and the resulting awareness is capable of creating better development, which in turn creates better awareness, and so on, leading to continuous improvement in both development and awareness. This continuous improvement in awareness naturally results in ongoing development in the legislation related to society.

Many may wonder about the position of the trans-ideological party if legislative issues are presented to its representatives in parliament. How will the representatives vote on these issues? Here lies the brilliance of our proposal in Binaa Sudan Party. Simply put, if the legislative issues presented do not conflict with any of the party's agreed-upon programs, the party's institutions grant its representatives in parliament the right to a free vote, which means that each representative has the right to vote according to what they believe aligns with their ideas. This is one of the clearest signs of expressing ideological diversity within our trans-ideological party system.