columns

Some are playing with fire in Sudan

Dr. Elshafie Khidir Saeid

In principle, political dialogue and negotiation are always the preferred option or scenario to resolve the political crises and conflicts since they avoid violence and bloodshed. But it is necessary and very important to differentiate between the dialogue that addresses the essence and the deep roots of the crisis and seeks to resolve it, and the dialogue that leads to superficial conciliatory solutions, or settlement, which does not address this essence, but rather reduces the dialogue process into a mere power sharing. Of course in this case the reproduction and the continuation of the crisis are eminent and inevitable In political transition the criterion for the success of any dialogue or negotiation is that it leads to consensus on the answers to the questions of the transitional period, the first task of which is the final liquidation of the existing forms of government that led to the crisis, and the formation of new forms codified by a democratic constitution that safeguards the rights of all and spares the country the catastrophes of bloody conflicts and civil wars. It is true that the outcome of any dialogue or negotiation is subject to the law of bargaining and the balance of power, and because of this particular reason, if the dialogue is limited to the political elites only and carried within behind closed doors away from the masses of the people, then the balance of power will tilt in favor of the influential group in power, and in this case the outcome of the dialogue or the negotiation will be the sharing of the power seats , and ignoring the demands of the masses, which means the continuation of the crisis. Only when the dialogue is performed in the light, and under the eyes and oversight of the masses, the negative effect of the bargaining over the top deals, can be minimized and the results could be in favor of resolving the crisis. At the end of the day, and in the case of the Sudan, any results, agreements, or settlements that do not respond to what the masses demonstratingon the streets have been calling for, will exacerbate the crisis and push the country to dangerous turns.

Under the weight of the defunct Injaz regime, the Sudanese people have suffered from the deterioration of their ability to provide the basics of life, and there is nothing more deadly to anyone than losing this ability. To restore this ability, the transitional period is necessary to establish a new system that enhances and preserves human dignity, expands the people capabilities, options and opportunities, and achieves their political economic and social freedoms, especially for the poorest and the most marginalized sectors of the society. It is well known that the philosophy of the transition periods is that it allows everyone, irrespective of her/ his political and intellectual visions, to agree on a national program/ project that paves the way to achieve the dream of breaking the evil cycle, or the sinister circle,which has been controlling the Sudan the dawn of its independence, and to put the country on a new track or foundation platform for building the post-independence national modern state. However, what we are witnessing today in the political theater ofSudan has nothing to do with this philosophy of transition, and in fact it has nothing to do with any philosophy unless failure and disappointments have a philosophy. Unfortunately, this scene has been repeated in all the experiences of transition that Sudan has gone through, all of which ended in a catastrophe whose first victims were the country and its people.

Back to top button