Sudan on the Brink: Unpacking the Politics Syndrome Plaguing a Nation

Dr. Alwaleed Adam Madibo

Over the past decades, Sudan has suffered from armed conflict which has had a profound effect on the character of Sudan, making it closer to independence, randomness and demagogy than to rationality and objectivity. These phenomena are closely related to the rescue regime, which lasted for three decades, where it created an environment of political fluidity and produced a comprehensive approach that contributed to the dismantling of the social fabric and caused the erosion of moral and intellectual values. As the rescue elites lack a moral motive and a national conscience, they take advantage of the intellectual vacuum resulting from years of oppression to pit citizens against each other and rely on citizens’ despair of the traditional political process, especially one that has produced nothing but repeated failure, greed. , and impotence which was a visible feature of the recent transitional period. We must recognize that the moral ambiguity and deplorable executive performance of the two councils (Council of Sovereignty and Council of Ministers) caused, directly or indirectly, the start of the war that we do not suffer the overwhelming passion or cunning of Kayzani’s hatred. This requires everyone to shoulder their responsibility and expect accountability in accordance with the degree of the crime they committed.

However, these elites are not calling for the invention of new systems for thinking and looking at how individuals interact with political and social events or exploring ways of building a society that is more aware and capable of change. Rather, they promise citizens a more comprehensive system and stick to oppression and abuse as a means to tame opponents and irritate the ears of rapists with their vain visions that have brought Destruction and destruction to the whole country, with the help of the debauchery and who conformed to propaganda and accepted populism as a means of avoiding imaginary and gelatinous figures. The American philosopher Noam Chomsky notes that “propaganda represents one of the methods of mind control, as it is used to direct public opinion towards specific goals.”

I wish the issue was limited to the crowd, but unfortunately it included academics and intellectuals who contributed to promoting chaos, where the scene is dominated by differences and confusion, instead of leading the people towards positive change that requires agreement on principles and not the exchange. from words and the beauty of flags to the beautiful image of war and signifying the creation of a healthy looking society. There is no clean war in history, and not all methods have succeeded in banishing the “other” from the collective imagination or memory, therefore, a formula for coexistence between all Sudanese must be found and a decision must be mobilized everyone to contribute to it. the advancement of the country.

According to the French philosopher, Michel Foucault, “knowledge and power are inseparable.” This principle appears in the way some elites used knowledge to serve the authority without showing any patronage or restraint, sometimes even boasting scientific titles to support a flimsy argument such as “I am a Professor, can I lied to you?” This lack reflects the elites’ lack of true understanding of society’s needs, which further deepens the gap between citizens and elites. Society needs honesty and objectivity, regardless of the consequences of that curve, and we have an example in Sheikh Farah, who once said, “If you were honest, you would not be saved by anger, we will save you”!

If we understand the state of resentment experienced by immigrants and attribute this to their difficult economic and living conditions, then what about those immigrants who live in civilized countries that are concerned with democracy and human rights, such as England, who support criminal, terrorist regimes in their countries? Is this a state of mental delirium and schizophrenia, or is it a state of mental retardation and cultural confusion? How do you explain the state of desperation reached by the Sudanese masses who recently gathered to demonstrate against Hamdok? How did the people comply with the directives of the media that once convinced them that Hamdok was the “savior,” and now the same party wants to convince them that Hamdok is a double “agent” under the best of circumstances and a traitor to his country in the worst of circumstances? When does the first magic stop working until the second magic works? How could this reversal of views occur? Is this a weak ability to think critically, or is it the result of a battle between political forces trying to profit from the chaos? Is this the result of thirty years of mind control, or does it reflect a deep need for identity and belonging, as Sudanese researcher Najla Fadl says? How can we understand the state of confusion experienced by intellectuals who are supposed to lead change? What can civil society play to strengthen political cultural identity? What are the possible strategies to ensure a national consensus away from chaos and irrational bias on ideological, ethnic or regional grounds?

These questions can open the way for a deeper discussion about the reality of Sudan and its future, with the hope that the ideas presented will contribute to finding solutions to the challenges facing the country. It is not enough to criticize Taqaddam Coordination and accuse it of moving without a popular base, as mere opportunism does not provide an objective argument to the recipient, whether in Sudan or abroad. Instead, we must create channels of communication between all the civilian bodies trying to end the war, as the characteristic of a civilian stampede is that it does not rely on a zero-sum equation. It is the duty of all to strive to reduce the suffering of the Sudanese, which only ends by stopping the war and considering how to restore stability and plan for the future of Sudan in a joint manner. We are far from being a democracy today We must create a governance equation that excludes both sides of the conflict from contributing to the complexity of the scene and gives their popular supporters a chance to think about the methods of civilian rule that lead to democracy after the availability of infrastructure, moral and material.

In this opportunity, I need to shed light on critical issues, the most important of which is the delegation of this damned war, show the fallacy of claiming that the military is a sovereign or institutional body, and expose the intentions of those who supporting the war in the country. the name of nationalism or patriotism. The intention of this war was to cut the path to a peaceful and civil revolution and thereby monopolize wealth and power. I don’t care who started the war, they both indulged in that lust or possessed that ecstasy. Although its supporters want to win and achieve some political points, they are not intimidated by the scale of the disasters that have happened to the Sudanese nation, they would like to see the generation that rejected them and opposed them with hostility suffer the condition of the a land of homelessness and displacement, while their leadership continues to enjoy the joy of the exiled countries and does not refrain for a moment from fanning the flames of their strife.

According to the American researcher Barry Glier, “populism grows in times of crisis, as people gather around figures who promise to change.” Popularity is a complex political phenomenon, the manifestation of which we saw in the United States through the election of Trump. But it is unfortunate that the Sudanese rally around the “reformer” while the Americans rally around the “deviant”. In other words, he failed to prove his moral integrity, but at least he succeeded in proving his medical vertebrae.

The talk of the sovereignty of the Sudanese state by those who support the military is a serious matter, especially since this sovereignty was never violated as it was during the rescue period, which was marked by the presence of a larger mission the United Nations in the world, similar to what happened in the genocide of the Sudanese people in the south and west of the country. As for talking about institutionalism at a time when the lifeline is producing militias from the womb of the Sudanese tribes, it is confusing, as it has always stimulated the contradictions between the Blues and the Arabs, between the Arabs and the Arabs and between the Blues and the Blues, to the latest crimes that contributed to the destruction of Sudan’s conscience and helped to tear the Social fabric. The Sudanese researcher, Ali Babiker, also notes that “the regime has worked to weaken social cohesion by politicizing religion and exploiting tribal divisions.”

A military and political organization with these dominant characteristics cannot be trusted with the future of the Sudanese nation. Accordingly, there must be international pressure, rather encouraging the recruitment of international forces to separate the warring parties and demand the no-fly zone used by neighboring countries and the Sudanese army to undermine the security of the Sudanese nations who refuse the guardianship of the rescue gang and demand their right to negotiate the social contract, review the structure and structure of the state in order to reach a comprehensive national settlement It ends the war and establishes an economic, social and sustainable development system.

Considering the nature of the military conflict in Sudan, a military solution is considered a miracle in a desert that the thirsty person thinks is water, until when he comes to him he gets it as nothing, but it comes found God with him and he pays him to account, and God is quick to judge. I don’t know how the corrupt people justify to themselves the idea of investing in war and jumping over the skulls of citizens to achieve uninterrupted power whose bliss is consumed!

In conclusion, I do not understand how a group or party intends to abandon or resist a civil effort aimed at uniting the Sudanese efforts to fight the war, unless it is an esoteric ally of one of the two factions a belligerent or demagogic movement that seeks fame, by issuing statements or reporting decisions, at the expense of considering how to protect civilians from destruction. It is therefore necessary to draw a lesson from the previous wars in Sudan, which did not end except through regional and international pressure that besieged the two warring parties by stimulating the collective consciousness that deprived the combatants of populism / partisanship, as one of the deadliest weapons they rely on to promote lies in the name of nationalism at times or in the name of patriotism. to avoid the mistakes that happened in Naivasha and Abuja, which made peace a reward for the military and not for others.

auwaab@gmail.com