Farewell, o Darkness of Carefree – the face of the truth – ✍️ Ibrahim Shaqlawi
In the context of the continuous failure of Sudanese political parties in the investment of the fall of the Bashir regime, a new scene shows that these forces continue to manipulate facts to reach close political gains. The declarations of Mubarak Al -fadil, leader of the UMMA party, reform and renewal, the day before yesterday in Al -jazeera about the alleged theses presented by the management of the country of the international community, which includes the acceptance of a limited role in Hamidati and rejection of any role for Abdullah Hamdouk, highlighting proximity and political opportunism in the country.
While political forces accuse the army of seeking a totalitarian regime, they ignore the fact that they could not present a unified vision or a real national leadership, containing to try to distort opponents and to falsify the awareness of the public. This continuous contradiction, based on lies and deception, reflects only a prolonged political crisis which hinders all horizon for the real democratic transition in Sudan.
The relationship between security and democracy has always been a deep philosophical dilemma, as the most important question is repeated: what is the first of the moments of major transformation, the stability of the state or the freedom of choice? In ideal contexts, democracy is considered to be the best way in the peoples rule, where the citizen is the same decision -maker, who chooses his leaders according to his free will. But when serious crises put countries in front of existential challenges, priorities are deactivated and dreamy ideologies are withdrawn, and the practical necessities that make security and stability are a value that exceeds everything they.
After the fall of the Bashir regime in 2019, the democratic dream was strongly present in the conscience of the Sudanese, but it quickly collided with a political reality full of contradictions. The problem was not the idea of democracy itself, but rather in its exercise confused by the political forces which seemed unable to manage it in a responsible manner. The parties missed precious opportunities to build a stable democratic model, and they were occupied by their zero difficulties, until the same democracy becomes a burden for the state rather than the means of building it.
When these forces chose, in the moments of their weakness, to depend on the adoption of external interference, and brought a mission of the United Nations on the pretext of assistance, then tried to impose the constitution of “lawyers”, it has become clear that the question is not linked to democracy, but rather to confiscate the national decision in the favor of colonial favorites who do not serve to make the country.
Today, we are confronted with a new equation that makes security a priority, in the political history of nations, people have always shown an innate tendency to strong power when they are faced with the danger of disintegration. Security is the basis of which civilizations are founded, and without it, the state loses its basic function in the protection of its citizens. In the moments of chaos, people realize that freedom without a system is governed by institutional controls which are transformed into chaos, and that democracy in the absence of a state capable of imposing its authority becomes just a slogan which has no sense for this philosophical approach which requires a conscience which goes beyond the ambitions of the parties in an authority which do not pay attention to the security of the country or its citizens.
In 2011, Egypt underwent an unprecedented state of political and security disorders, as clear differences between political forces led to a state of division and conflict, which caused the drop in economics and increasing security threats. With the arrival of the country on the edge of chaos, the army intervention occurred in 2013, when a roadmap focused on stability was imposed first, before returning to the democratic path through subsequent presidential and legislative elections. Today, despite the different opinions on the details of what happened, Egypt has managed to restore security and build its economy, which highlights the importance of balance between stability and freedom.
Likewise, Rwanda, after the 1994 genocide, realized that the Rwandan management according to which the reconstruction of the State could not start from direct pluralism, but rather from the imposition of stability first, from the reconstruction of state institutions, and then went to a progressive political opening. Today, Rwanda is one of the fastest growth countries in Africa, due to its introduction to the concept of “security first” as a prerequisite for development and democracy.
Internationally, China offers a different model because it has managed to achieve an enormous economic rebirth without adopting liberal democracy in the Western style. The Chinese Communist Party maintained its control over power, but in return, it ensured political stability which allowed unprecedented development, which made China the second economy of the world. These models raise an important question on the need for democracy in its traditional formula to achieve development, or is institutional stability the most important element in the construction of states?
Based on these data, it was not surprising that political parties lost the confidence of the Sudanese, who saw in the army the only institution capable of rebalancing the state. According to the constitutional document of the year 2025, the army is required to direct the country at this stage according to a new vision, which is not based on the cloning of experiences of the past, but rather establishes a rational rule which places security and stability at the forefront of priorities, in preparation for a real democratic phase, in which the State is not removed by the elites or the climbing which failed.
Goodbye, O the darkness of concern … And welcome, morning of Sudan, it is not necessary to reproduce the dictatorship, as some favor, but rather a new equation which guarantees the stability of the State without confiscating the future of democracy. Just as security without freedom leads to repression, freedom without security leads to chaos, and between these two limits, the State needs a stadium of coherent transition, to rebuild its institutions, to establish a productive economy and to prepare the country for real elections in the 39 months, in which the people can exercise their right to choose, but in a safe and stable environment. It is the face of truth.
You are fine and well.
