Dr. Elshafie Khidir Saeid
The political crisis in Sudan has entered a dangerous stage with a terrifying possibility of dragging the country into a societal civil war similar to the fire raging in Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Unfortunately, the political atmosphere is so conducive for such a scenario: The ongoing war in Darfur with a possibility to spread to the rest of the country, since all the conflicting parties are present everywhere in the country, especially Khartoum, which has become heavily infiltrated with armed militias that will not remain silent towards the attempts of change as long as this change will directly affect them, the continuing fragmentation among the political parties and the clear differences in their political discourses, the worsening of the deteriorating living conditions in light of the absence of the cabinet and the suspension of the international economic program…etc.
The Resistance Committees are left alone in the streets bearing the burden of organizing the protests and facing the bloody repression and daily martyrdom. But, despite this courageous and effective role of the Resistance Committees, and although the flame of the revolution is still blazing, the path to safety is fraught with dangers and obstacles in the absence of a unified leadership for the protests, and in the absence of an agreed action program that guides this unified leadership, and in light of the multiplicity of roadmaps, discourses and charters which may conflict with each other.
The country is in dire need of a safe way out to confront this dangerous situation, which is heading towards the abyss. In my opinion, we need a way out that combines the direct tackling of the essence of the crisis, but with the lowest cost that protects the homeland from the evil of destruction and bloodshed. Of course, adopting this or that option is governed by several objective and subjective factors away from desirability and mere wishes.
However, talking about any option or scenario is meaningless, and it will remain mere lip service if the unity of the forces of change does not precede it. Therefore, I think the top priority before discussing this or that scenario, is to engage in practical steps that achieve this unity, instead of each party being embedded in its position and assuming that it is the “correct” and the other is the “wrong”! In this regard, I positively appraise the Sudanese Universities Chancellors initiative and the United Nations initiative. I always say you can disagree with the other’s political views and assessments, but I have no right to call her/him a traitor. This will be ignored if not a crime.
Also, you can criticize the contribution of this or that party to resolve the Sudanese crisis, but your criticism must proceed from the principle that the wrong treatment by any of these parties does not mean that either of them is not patriotic. I believe that, in the public domain, especially the political one, our judgments should not start from a position of condemnation or revenge, but rather from a position of an objective critical view that allows us to avoid mistakes and draw lessons. I also believe that in a healthy democratic environment, the political and mass movement institutions, including the political parties, the civil society groups, and the national personalities, are capable of developing and changing for the better through objective criticisms and through intellectual activities which are open to the contemporary developments and changes in Sudan and the world.
Once again, without unified leadership, any proposed scenario for resolving the current crisis would be like plowing at the sea.