Is the Theory of Marginalization an Extension of the Theory of Conspiracy?
July 31, 2005
This question is one of the serious and legitimate inquiries aimed at probing the depths of
political dynamics within the Sudanese arena—a scene that itself suffers from a lack of
mature ethical political intellect both within the state apparatus and among its politicians,
owing to the bitter and painful experiences the nation has endured across all its facets and
aspects.
Political discourse has, for many factions presenting themselves as saviors of Sudan’s
fractured landscape from collapse, marginalization, conflict, and profound backwardness,
become a tool stripped of educational value. Regardless, Sudanese political discourse has
failed to evolve because its foundations and references are deeply rooted in the theory of
conspiracy, which, over time, has morphed into a substitute for mature political action. It has
instead become a domesticated mindset that responds to events instantaneously within a
confused horizon riddled with deficiencies, failing to thoroughly examine causes and
underlying factors, or to comprehend the political map with impartiality and transparency.
This has led to the notions of liberation, emancipation, and renewal, which themselves have
formed isolated pockets represented by local entities with a mere tribal dimension, serving a
singular bloc. Yet, the political arena demands genuine cross-pollination and convergence of
ideas and concepts around a shared vision and common denominators that define partnership
and participation—free from dependence, subjugation, or insistence on the conspiracy as the
principal cause of decline, collapse, and conflict, to the exclusion of other factors.
Since the question boldly probes the nature of conspiracy and the extent of its connection to
the theory of marginalization—or vice versa—the answer can be framed within several key
points:
Firstly: The refusal to accept the other as a partner constitutes both a component of the
conspiracy itself and a form of marginalization. This stance encourages the adoption of
concepts and ideas whose evidence supports conspiracy as a reality, not an illusion, though its
manifestations vary with time and place.
Secondly: The absence of consensual transparency within the political fabric, as a strategic
dimension and a cultural value of dialogue, invites discord, collision, and potentially
isolationism that subsequently formulates its own agenda.
Thirdly: The continued domination by a singular element over all reins of
power—sometimes in the name of nationalism, other times religion, ethnicity, democracy, or
other familiar means of deception—constitutes direct or indirect wings of the conspiracy.
Fourthly: The adherence to a projection complex as a substitute for dialogue, engagement,
and reconciliation with the other is itself a conspiracy, which inevitably entails excluding the
other. Exclusion, in any form or at the highest levels, amounts to marginalization. The
collective shock manifests when extremist political ideology becomes the standard modus
operandi for political practice, akin to a compulsive act. Given that the prevailing political
mentality is that of rural militarism—politicized through intellectual bankruptcy and lack of
organizational and theoretical depth—this engenders a form of marginalization under the
guise of resisting marginalization. This paradox elucidates how conspiracy itself breeds this
betrayal. If we attempt to interpret events as inevitable stage requirements or necessary
dialectical struggles, the picture remains bleak.
Fifthly: The historically entrenched schizoid mentality of regimes, characterized by
fragmentation and inconsistency, nourishes the conspiracy as an undeniable reality with
inescapable ramifications.
Through this exposition—which may appear hypothetical in its approach and analysis yet is a
detailed, critical narrative—it becomes evident that marginalization is indeed an extension of
conspiracy. This is because conspiracy itself often represents the flip side of marginalization.
The recurrent slips of Sudanese politics into taboo territories—both internationally and
domestically—and the distortion of balances in practices related to partnership and
participation among all societal factions and their diversities, starkly illustrate this reality.
What Sudanese political intellect sorely lacks is a culture of participation and constitutional
governance, both at the center and at the peripheries. Instead, regional organizations and rural
entities, which initially formed part of administrative structures, have evolved into politically
charged precedents designed to domesticate the other under a singular tribal identity—either
through isolation, exclusion, intimidation, deception, or branding with criminal accusations.
While conspiracy remains a cultural dimension that fuels the culture of marginalization, it
demands a comprehensive review and reform—both organizationally and conceptually—with
critical scrutiny at all levels.
