Dr. Elshafie Khidir Saeid
Almost all the political initiatives that have been launched since the 25th of October 2021 coup declare that their main goal is to resolve the Sudanese crisis and achieve a national reconciliation and national consensus in Sudan. Although the majority of these initiatives are stating clearly that their approach to resolving the Sudanese crisis is to walk through the path of civil democratic transformation and to address the political and social tension in the country which heralds a possible catastrophe, they miss the triad of “the political will, the vision and the tool” to materialize their ideas. However, some initiatives will inevitably aggravate the crisis and prevail in the state of conflicts & disagreements which hastens the catastrophe in the country.
These are the initiatives that are based on a perception of looking at the December 2018 revolution as if it was a stumbling block or a mistake in Sudan’s sociopolitical path. Definitely, such initiatives are also based on denying the principles of freedom, peace, and justice and they are equating the revolutionaries with those the people revolted against.
Almost all the initiatives in the Sudan political arena are calling for achieving national reconciliation, or a national consensus. Of course, these two concepts cannot be rejected by any sane person, but at the same time, it is not possible to allow them to be hijacked or to spoil their meanings, and tailor them to fit the size of the ousted regime personnel so as not to harm their feelings, wealth, or interests!
According to the political customs and traditions of the peoples all over the world, and as entrenched by the human experience, national reconciliation, or the national consensus, is achieved only when everyone agrees on a serious transitional option, according to which the existing forms of government that led to the crisis are finally liquidated, and new forms are codified by a democratic constitution that safeguards the rights of all and spares the country the disasters of bloody conflicts and civil wars.
The experiences of the peoples who decided, or were forced by the circumstances of crises, to take the paths of the national reconciliation, confirm that reconciliation begins with a fundamental change in the apparatus of the existing/ ousted authority, its constitution, and its laws, besides that anyone of its personnel who committed crimes against the people and the country shall be removed from positions of government responsibility and sent to justice, the facts and the details of all crimes and practices of the ousted regime shall be published, and the judiciary shall be restored to its independence.
I do believe that the national reconciliation, or the national consensus, can be looked at, in part, as a construction for the future and a new experience on the ruins of a tyrannical regime. It is a fruitful building for a society to reconcile with itself and aspiring a needed state of rights, freedoms, and the rule of law.
Any project for national reconciliation or national consensus should not be bargaining with the principles of the revolution, or a deal between two or more parties to the conflict, or just a maneuver to save the body of the former regime, but rather it should result in an acknowledgment of the crisis and an agreement on the fundamentals that radically address this crisis.
And any approach less than this will be incompatible with the interests of our people and is not commensurate with the bitter sacrifices that they have made, and as if it mocks the blood and souls of the martyrs.