by: Trayo A. Ali To talk about a “national dialogue” in Sudan’s political discussions, especially to do so in a positive tone, is often risky and fraught with emotional responses or suspicions. Such talk raises eyebrows and even creates opportunities for opponents to easily paint the proponents of dialogue as traitors or conspirators. All these negative connotations arise from the bad reputation of dialogue caused by the abuse and the misuse of the term in Sudan’s political history, the pervasive mistrust among the Sudanese political actors arising from consistent betrayals, and because of the culture of political irrationality in Sudan’s political thinking, which belittles the value of dialogue. As the saying goes, “a cat bitten once by a snake dreads even rope,” and while dialogue is the most realistic, effective, risk-free, transparent, consensual, comprehensive, and advanced form of peaceful political discourse in managing conflict or effecting political change, the concept of dialogue remains more politically contentious—but also necessary–than any time before in addressing Sudan’s political dilemma. Despite its reputation, the necessity of dialogue in Sudan is unavoidable under the prevailing circumstances and hard facts on the ground. There is an urgent need to have the widest possible base of …