“Shameless” leaders in Sudan.. Arguments for collapse in broad daylight

An urgent question arose with the Arab Summit’s announcement of its closing statement, and it began to beg for an answer, which is: Did the Arab leaders put an end to attempts to violate legitimacy with the return of President Bashar al-Assad, thus blocking the way for the commander of the Rapid Support Forces, Muhammad Hamdan Dagalo, “Hemedti”?!

Outwardly, nothing connects the two people, but some reflection reveals another depth. The first is a “legitimate” president whose war on a popular revolution led by militias in Syria drove him away from the bosom of the Arab League, while the second is a “militia leader” who tried to abort a revolution, so he clung to his gifts that they stole from the leaders of the council. The Central Committee of the Forces for Freedom and Change is “insolent”, and encouraged it to turn against the legitimacy of the state in Sudan. The Riyadh summit was only to correct the error of the two cases, so Bashar al-Assad restored the legitimacy of the fait accompli, and Sudan’s voice was raised through the envoy of the President of the Sovereignty Council, Lieutenant General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, with the summit’s insistence on rejecting all bilaterals and militias that threaten the stability, unity and sovereignty of the Arab countries.

So, the arguments that the theater of political absurdity has reveled in Sudan over the past four years may seem reasonable or correct on the surface, but in reality they may force everyone who comes close to them to take the trouble to use harsh phrases as a result of the unjust policies that resulted from them for the vast majority of Sudanese, and what They suffered from the abuse of flawed procedures or unfair trials, and eventually led to a war that decimated the tillage and the offspring.

People discovered that the arguments that were covered with the slogans of “freedom… peace… and justice” and seemed logical in the outburst of revolutionary rage had backfired when the opportunity for their owners to be applied to the necks of the violators. The revolutionaries applauded the ugliness of silencing mouths, killing peace and slaughtering justice, and they were not ashamed of rushing with the numbers of the masses drugged by the momentum of the “millions” from embassy to embassy, ​​considering those who do so smart and shrewd, even if they appear deceitful in all their words and actions.

Change militia

Those who were described as “leaders” in the chaos of the revolution, delegated a tribal militia commander to transfer them by force to the city, and they did not avoid using threats and intimidation in their private and public arguments, which they kept spreading until the dawn of the fall. It is important for people to remember how steadfast they were in the face of lying and challenging the arguments of others, even as they tried to deceive them with the wrong line of thinking that they adopted as a method for their discourse with opponents.

The reference here is not to a specific person from the group of those who are left behind, but it may be a picture of a general situation that has opened people’s ears with inappropriate expressions of infringement of their rights. In general, a useful way to identify all the arguments that have been advanced is to categorize some of them as relevant, others related to components, others shrouded in ambiguity, and finally omissions.

This classification prompts us to call for evidence that makes us re-read what he was promoting about the timing of signing the “framework” political agreement imposed from abroad, for which they chose historical symbols associated with the month of April that some people yearn for, and it is in fact unrelated to the agreement-making kitchen. There is no consensus on it.

That is why, when the three days of April passed without a signature and the dreamers of the “shameless” leaders were unable to establish a government of ambassadors of the Quartet, they resorted to the idea of ​​appealing by referring to force or the fallacy of the argument for dialogue by borrowing the logic of force or threatening to use this force, and attached it to some inappropriate reactions. The other way is to get the public to accept the conclusion that the Rapid Support Forces are ready to protect the civilian transition that underlies democracy, but reject its electoral condition.

And with the evasions of democracy talk that were usually used as a last resort when evidence or rational arguments failed to convince people that the proposed civilian alternative would not be more authoritarian than the military regime, the preparations for the coup were taking place with a military foot at home and a media leg abroad.

The plan of movement on the ground was tightened by a practical occupation of all positions of sovereignty and leadership in the capital, Khartoum, and the long arms of action extended to the city of “Maroe” in the north of the country, and media support stations lined up in all the region, and social media sites loaded with the agendas of the capitals spewed their poison from them. It is not embarrassed by being exposed to the anger of those who betrayed them, and it is not indifferent to the long-term destruction of what is left of yesterday’s Sudan.

rejected mechanism

It was clear; In every discussion about whether elections are the universally recognized mechanism of democracy, the actors on the stage of the political absurdity do not want to mention them, but rather warn against them if they are mentioned. It is strange that the capitals of the West, which usually manipulate democracy and elections, voluntarily gave it up in the case of Sudan.

The explanations came that her renunciation of her would not have been possible had it not been for her fear of two things:

  • The first is that the elections will inevitably rehabilitate the Islamists to rule again, and in a stronger way than they were at any time in the past, especially after people had the opportunity to compare them with those who revolted against them.
  • The second is that the regional supporters of the “insolent” forces of freedom and change, who are more terrified than the West of the idea of ​​the return of the Islamists, never risk a democracy that questions the legitimacy of their regimes after they were able to eliminate all the democratization experiments produced by the Arab Spring revolutions, and they will not allow Sudan to It is an exception for the same reasons, and other governance nodes of their own.

For this, the will of the Western and Arab parties converged to work together to decide the future of Sudan, even on the back of the mechanisms of the Rapid Support militia. And the civil government, if it is maintained by those who are like “insolent” leaders, then there is nothing wrong with bearing the costs of aligning it with their aspirations, and those of them who do not agree to implement what is asked of them, the documents will clear their irrefutable authority at that time.

Is it not well known that the media and media have already been filled with news of “million dollar” gifts, especially for names and symbols that none of them dared to deny because they realized that this denial, if it came, does not change the reality of the incident! Also, people’s question will be: Weren’t the salaries of Prime Minister Abdullah Hamdok’s government and his assistants during the era of the “shameless” mandate foreign dollars? People’s conversations were also full of its truth for many months, and the entire state apparatus neglected to respond to it, until it became a Muslim, and even considered one of the honors for which the courtesans race!

However, it later became clear that the veiled argument at the time was not limited to denial, but rather contained threats of violence for those who persist in promoting what is an established truth. These included threats of administrative action, any unpleasant financial or professional response, or other forms of retaliation.

Here, we do not need to remind the reader that intimidation, of which there have been many statements, has forced many Sudanese media professionals to comply with this contrary to the rightness of professional practice. What the Ministry of Information did, under the leadership of its agent, who was carried by the first evacuation plane for foreigners, of methods of enticement and intimidation with employees of state-owned media agencies and expelling those who disagreed from their position or deporting them if they did not raise their rhetoric in the way they wanted, more than what can be summed up in an article.

He went to extremes in insulting the authority by harnessing it as a weapon against all media violators, severing their union unity, and preoccupying them with endless struggles over the feasibility of national value, after the leadership of the official media outlets became presiding over foreign passport holders. All society’s values ​​and features of its tolerance and tolerance were blocked from screens and pages. Talking about taboos and “nonsense” will become prevalent. The nights of Ramadan were not spared from deliberate provocation by obscenities promoting their deviations; Such as promoting “homosexuality” and degrading the clergy in a country where any slight amount of harshness is outrageous, even if the expressions are normal.

False argument and corrupt logic

The authenticity of these practices and threats embraced by the “shameless” leaders confirmed that a certain position was classified by them as the correct national position or is correct because it was issued by them, and that those who disagree with them are not patriotic. It is a behavior that interferes with the logic of monopoly and exclusion, carries a spirit of revenge, and lacks the integrity of the argument. The best way to discover this behavior is to contemplate the emotionally charged terminology that they used, that soft vocabulary under which the tools of repression, revenge, and harsh individual practices are hidden, and the misfortunes and violations they inflicted on innocent people affected their jobs, means of earning, sources of livelihood, confiscation of their property, and so on, in which what was called excelled. “Empowerment Removal Committee”.

Therefore, this approach was not appropriate for a revolution whose slogans were “freedom… peace and justice,” and it was not appropriate for a good citizen in a country like Sudan, who received more than he deserves from the shares of oppression and injustice in the spring of his revolution. In all of these examples, “shameless” did not provide evidence of the validity of the argument that motivated her to commit what she did, nor did she hold herself accountable for her inability to fulfill what she promised. Rather, it only made assertions on the entitlement of people who agree or on the pretext of revenge for those who do not agree, as an entry point to a freedom that was suppressed, a peace that was guaranteed to be crushed by its ally, and justice that was not achieved.

Therefore, this line of thought that was adopted by the “shameless” leaders confirms that the hypothesis of revenge must be true for those who believed in it during 4 lean years. For example, the tongue of the Minister of Finance in charge at the time stumbled in pronouncing the “transitional” period, so she went with what is common among his colleagues, and she said without equivocation and in front of the media the “revenge” period, so she believed where she erred.

This was only for a simple reason, which is that the appeal to the idea of ​​transition was not present in her imagination and was not in her mind when she replaced transitionalism with revenge. Procrastination in setting a time limit for the transitional period reinforced the idea that revolutionary legitimacy will never continue, and that the hypothesis of revenge alone was the one that always worked with great vigor, and in its bet on that it did not consider other options.

Accordingly, “shameless” thought that she would always work in a reality that no one else had the opportunity to own, or that they might have the luck to participate in as they wished. Therefore, that minister’s mistake was good enough for all those who were harmed by the policies of systematic revenge, so they said: Why does the “insolent” minister not utter it if her government practices it publicly! Such an argument is attractive because it seems logical, but it ignores important questions, such as: Could an alternative policy have worked better than this policy of revenge?! Have conditions changed from what they were before October 25, 2021?! Were the defects of this policy what caused the country to perish now?! Has new evidence emerged that might cast doubt on such a policy in the future?!

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *