Have we identified our problem in Sudan? – National Whisper – ✍️ Dr Tariq Ashary
As much as we have written during this war many articles on the multiple crises of Sudan, my mind did not leave this question, and we specified our problem in Sudan, even if I approached the analysis and description of each problem by itself and we have put computer solutions which led us to the reform, but it remains there, and it is since independence
Sudan was the question of the repeated generation of the national crisis after generation, but we have not yet managed to get their hands on the origin of the disease. We are often occupied by the symptoms of the crisis; War, poverty, coups and economic collapse, while the roots of the problem are much deeper than that, we have not yet defined a project
A national agreed by all Sudanese, determines their common identity and brings them together with regard to a unified vision to build the state. Consequently, Sudan continued to live in the struggle of identities and rival affiliations, instead of being a country that can accommodate everyone.
The political and military elites considered power as a booty, not as a means of building institutions. This conflict transformed the state into a permanent court of conflict, deepened the feeling of injustice, and the wars escaped and the social gaps have extended.
The absence of independent institutions and the collapse of the rule of law made the state fragile, vulnerable to coups d’etat and to divisions. And when the law is absent, the law of power prevails and the citizen turns into a victim in his homeland.
The biggest error we made is that we focused on the results and left the reasons. We examined the war as if it was the problem when it is a result, we considered the coups as the crisis when it reflects the failure of the political system, we have seen poverty and hunger as if they were at the origin of the crisis when they are results of the absence of justice in the distribution of resources.
The determination of the problem is half the path of the solution. The fundamental question today: do we accept to define our problem before looking for solutions? If we do not agree on the origin of the disease, we will no longer harvest rotation in the same vicious circle.
Sudan, despite its wealth in resources and cultural diversity, could not carry out a national project that unites its children. Instead, each region, each part and each group that are looking for remain isolated from the others. This fragmentation is the weakest feeling of belonging to the whole fatherland and makes the state vulnerable to disintegration and division.
Since the dawn of independence, authority in Sudan has turned into itself, asking for force more than democracy. The elite struggle for the decision brought him back several times into politics and has transformed the state into a booty shared by the winners. Consequently, the massive resources of Sudan have remained captive to corruption and mismanagement, instead of being the basis of the Renaissance.
A country cannot increase without firm institutions and equitable laws. But Sudan has known through its fragile institutions of history, which are built and destroyed at each coup. The law is often applied and justice has been far, which opened the door to injustice, rebellion and chaos.
The biggest error is that we have been confused between symptoms and diseases.
War is not the problem, but due to the absence of justice and the national project.
The state kicks are not at the origin of the disease, but rather a reflection of the failure of the political system.
Poverty and hunger are not the beginning, but the fruit of the lack of rational resource management.
If we do not agree as Sudanese to define our real problem, we will continue to turn in the vicious circle. Each reform begins with the recognition of the disease. History has taught us that peoples only get up when they have put a complete national project that goes beyond divisions, makes the homeland greater than the party, more precious than the tribe, and remains only personal interests.
It is time to stop treating the symptoms and to face the truth: our problem in Sudan is neither poverty nor war alone, but the absence of a universal national vision. If we do not specify our illness and we agree with treatment, tomorrow will not be better than yesterday. Sudan first deserves to put its interest and create a project that gives its diaspora, before losing the rest of the fatherland. And Sudan after the war is stronger and the most beautiful
