The New Independence Party is founded upon four fundamental principles: Independence, Equality, Justice and Progress. Each of these principles has its own meaning and significance. However, Progress deserves particular attention because it is frequently misunderstood or associated with political ideologies that have no exclusive claim to its meaning or expression.
We wish to explain this principle particularly to the younger generations of Sudan, upon whom we place considerable hope for changing the direction of our country. Sudan’s future will depend on a generation capable of independent thinking, questioning inherited assumptions, and making decisions based on education, knowledge and scientific evidence, rather than political slogans or preconceived ideological judgments.
Our understanding of Progress can be expressed in a simple statement:
“The past is not the best that Sudan can offer; our objective is to build a better future.”
This statement does not call upon us to abandon our history or diminish the achievements of our ancestors. On the contrary, Sudan possesses a rich and ancient civilisational heritage that deserves our pride and respect. But respecting the past should not mean accepting that the greatest achievements our people are capable of have already been accomplished. Every generation inherits something from those who came before it, and each has a responsibility to leave something better for those who follow.
This is what we mean by Progress.
Nevertheless, the word itself sometimes gives rise to unnecessary confusion. Some associate Progress with Marxism, socialism or other modern political movements, as though the idea of human progress originated with one of these schools of thought. Such an interpretation overlooks a long history of philosophical debate that began centuries before Karl Marx was born.
The word Progress in European languages derives from the Latin Progressus, meaning movement forward or advancement. Over time, the word acquired a broader meaning. It came to describe not merely physical movement but also the development of human knowledge, civilisation and society.
The English philosopher Francis Bacon, who lived between 1561 and 1626, was among the thinkers who helped establish this understanding.
In his book Novum Organum (The New Organon), published in 1620, Bacon criticised the methods by which knowledge was acquired and prevailing opinions were accepted. European universities at that time remained heavily influenced by ecclesiastical intellectual traditions and the authority of Aristotle’s ideas. Bacon argued that knowledge should not rest merely upon acceptance of inherited teachings, but upon observation of nature, experimentation, the examination of evidence, and a willingness to reconsider conclusions that failed to withstand testing.
His contribution was particularly important because it placed human inquiry and the possibility of discovering new knowledge at the centre of intellectual development. If human beings could improve their understanding of nature, they could also improve the conditions in which they lived.
This approach helped prepare the intellectual foundations of the European Enlightenment, during which the idea of Progress developed into a broader concept concerning human civilisation and its capacity for improvement.
During the eighteenth century, the French thinker Anne Robert Jacques Turgot argued that human knowledge develops through the accumulated experiences of successive generations. In his 1750 discourse on the successive advances of the human mind, he described civilisation as a continuous process in which each generation inherits the discoveries and experiences of previous generations and has the opportunity to develop and add to them.
This understanding represented an important departure from the belief that human society must remain bound by existing traditions, or that its greatest achievements necessarily belonged to earlier ages. It offered a different perspective: knowledge could accumulate, institutions could improve, and societies could advance through the efforts of their people.
The French philosopher Marquis de Condorcet subsequently developed this understanding more extensively. In his book Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind, published in 1795, he argued that advances in scientific knowledge, education, political freedom and equality could improve the human condition. Condorcet did not regard ignorance, oppression and inequality as permanent features of human existence. Rather, he saw them as obstacles that could be confronted and overcome through the spread of knowledge and the development of social institutions.
The German philosopher Immanuel Kant approached the question from another perspective. In his famous essay of 1784, An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?, he called upon individuals to use their own reason and independent understanding instead of unquestioningly relying upon the authority of others. He regarded intellectual independence, freedom of thought and the courage to use one’s own reason as essential conditions of enlightenment.
What united these thinkers was not adherence to a single political ideology. They approached human development from different philosophical perspectives, but shared an interest in humanity’s capacity to improve its conditions of life through knowledge, reason and independent thought.
There was, however, another important dimension to this philosophical debate. Not all philosophers believed that every advance in civilisation necessarily improved human life.
In the eighteenth century, Jean-Jacques Rousseau questioned whether the development of science, the arts, wealth and cultural refinement necessarily made human beings more virtuous or morally responsible. In his Discourse on the Sciences and Arts, published in 1750, he warned that material advancement could coexist with corruption, inequality and moral decline.
His warning remains relevant today. A country may possess towering buildings, modern roads, advanced industries and the latest technologies, while large sections of its population live in poverty, suffer injustice or are denied fundamental freedoms. Such a country may have achieved economic or technological development, but can it truly be said to have achieved genuine human progress?
For the New Independence Party, material development alone is not sufficient. The ultimate measure of Progress must be its impact upon people’s lives. Have their living conditions improved? Have opportunities for education and employment expanded? Are their dignity and rights better protected? Have institutions been established that serve citizens fairly and efficiently? And are people able to participate meaningfully in decisions that affect their future?
These questions are far more important than the outward appearances of modernity.
It was against this already well-established philosophical background that Karl Marx developed his theories during the nineteenth century. Marx, who lived between 1818 and 1883, offered his own interpretation of historical change, focusing on economic conditions, the development of productive forces and conflict between social classes.
In The Communist Manifesto, published jointly with Friedrich Engels in 1848, Marx examined the transformations brought about by the development of capitalism and the emergence of new economic and social relationships. His interpretation of history was distinctive, and his writings subsequently exercised considerable influence upon political and economic thought.
But Marx did not invent the idea of Progress. By the time he began developing his theories, philosophers had already spent generations debating human development, scientific discovery, education, freedom and the improvement of society.
Consequently, the claim that every political movement adopting Progress as one of its principles must necessarily be Marxist is historically incorrect. It confuses a broad philosophical concept with a particular theory of historical development. Thinkers from numerous philosophical traditions have examined and defended the concept of Progress, and no political ideology can claim exclusive ownership of it.
This distinction is important for the New Independence Party. We do not adopt Progress as an imported ideological formula, nor do we believe that history follows a predetermined course that inevitably leads to a better society. Rather, we regard Progress as a national responsibility, founded upon our belief that the Sudanese people can improve their conditions of life through knowledge, work, institutions and the political choices they make.
Consider the reality of Sudan today. Our country possesses extensive natural resources, fertile agricultural land, a long civilisational history and a people capable of contributing to national development. Yet Sudan has experienced repeated political crises, armed conflicts, economic deterioration and institutional failures. The present war has demonstrated, in tragic circumstances, how quickly achievements accumulated over successive generations can be destroyed.
History does not guarantee that any nation will continue to progress. Countries can move backwards, institutions can collapse, economies can deteriorate, and societies can lose the security and opportunities they once enjoyed.
For this reason, we cannot regard Progress as something that will occur merely because time passes or because political leaders promise a better future. Progress requires conscious choices, responsible government, effective public institutions and a sustained commitment to the welfare of citizens.
Education and scientific knowledge must occupy a central place in this effort. No country can build a modern, productive economy while neglecting the education of its children or restricting freedom of research and independent thought. Young Sudanese must have opportunities to develop their abilities, question prevailing assumptions, acquire practical skills and participate in the scientific and technological developments shaping our contemporary world.
But education alone will not be sufficient if society continues to tolerate injustice and inequality. Economic development cannot be regarded as successful when opportunities remain confined to particular groups or regions, or when citizens are denied essential public services and political participation.
State institutions must therefore be governed by the rule of law and held accountable. Their purpose should be to serve the Sudanese people as citizens with equal rights, not to protect the interests of particular individuals, groups or geographical regions. Without effective and impartial institutions, even substantial economic resources may fail to produce lasting improvements in people’s lives.
Sudan’s natural and human resources should be employed to build a productive economy, create employment opportunities, improve living standards and support development throughout the country. The objective should not merely be to increase national wealth, but to ensure that the benefits of development reach the broadest possible sections of society.
None of this requires us to abandon our cultural identity or civilisational heritage. On the contrary, our history should be a source of confidence in the Sudanese people’s capacity for achievement.
Sudan’s ancient civilisations and the diverse cultural traditions that emerged and developed across its territories form part of our shared national heritage. They deserve to be studied, preserved and appreciated. But the achievements of previous generations should inspire us to accomplish new things, not persuade us that our best days are behind us.
We should neither portray the past as an ideal age free from shortcomings nor reject it simply because it belongs to an earlier period. We should preserve what is valuable in it, examine where we have failed, correct what needs correction, and remain prepared to develop new ideas and institutions whenever existing institutions and practices can no longer serve the interests of our people.
This is particularly important for Sudan’s younger generations. They have inherited a country facing enormous difficulties, but they have also inherited its history, resources, knowledge and potential. Their responsibility is not to repeat indefinitely the political disputes of previous generations, or to accept that Sudan must remain trapped in the same conflicts and institutional failures.
Rather, they should be prepared to examine the causes of those failures and consider how a different future can be built.
That future will not emerge from slogans alone. It requires serious thought, education, political responsibility, public participation and the courage to reconsider practices that have become familiar merely because they have existed for a long time.
Progress, as we understand it, is not a promise that tomorrow will automatically be better than today. It is a commitment to working to make it better.
Francis Bacon’s emphasis on observation and scientific inquiry, Turgot’s understanding of the accumulation of human knowledge, Condorcet’s belief in education and equality, Kant’s defence of intellectual independence, and Rousseau’s warning against confusing material advancement with human improvement are all contributions to a philosophical tradition far broader than any modern ideology. Marx came later and offered his own interpretation of historical development, but the idea of Progress neither began with him nor belongs exclusively to his school of thought.
It is part of humanity’s shared intellectual heritage.
The New Independence Party adopts Progress in this broad human sense. We believe that Sudan can become a country in which future generations enjoy greater freedom, justice, equality, knowledge and prosperity than those who preceded them. We believe that achieving this objective is possible, but that it depends upon the decisions we make, the institutions we build and the responsibilities we are prepared to undertake.
We respect our ancestors and take pride in what they achieved, but we do not want future generations merely to admire their accomplishments. We want them to achieve accomplishments of their own, to enjoy opportunities greater than those available to us, and to live in a country governed better than the one we inherited.
Our history deserves respect and pride, but our future deserves our attention and our efforts, each of us contributing in our own field, so that our country may attain the place it deserves among the nations of the world.
“The past is not the best that Sudan can offer; our objective is to build a better future.”
New Independence Party