Introduction
The concepts of “country” and “homeland” are often seen to be used improperly by some nations, with their use while condemning governments being a major mistake. The concept of “homeland” differs completely from that of “government,” and this difference lies in the fact that a homeland is a constant while governments are variables. In line with this, we find that nations ensure the preservation of the homeland by establishing constants that consider the nation’s interests while governing and regulating political action in the country to ensure that governmental practices and policies are controlled so that they do not harm national interests.
Sudan, like other African countries, often confuses these two terms, even among the educated classes. This has inevitably had negative repercussions for the country’s political practices and mentality. Naturally, these negative repercussions have had consequences that are believed to have severely damaged the structure of the Sudanese state administratively, politically, socially, and culturally. This study is based on the belief that the current political circumstances in Sudan are conducive for addressing this issue, studying and analyzing it in search of its roots and causes, and attempting to find radical solutions. This will pave the way for the development of a new political mentality in Sudan, governed by national principles that take national interests into account and remain unaffected by changes in governments and political regimes. Post-war Sudan must be shaped according to an approach that avoids all the mistakes made in the past, since its independence from British rule in early 1956.
