Seven factors that can transform the war in Khartoum into a new national project
Interviewer: Al-Asmai Bashri
The current war in Sudan has been described by some as absurdity and considered by UN reports as one of the deadliest to the Sudanese people. It is also the most inclusive of its predecessors, as it has been characterized by ongoing wars and armed conflicts since 1955, which began with what has been referred to in Sudanese political literature as the Torit Rebellion.
We posed a question to the writer and researcher in peacebuilding and conflict resolution, Abdullah Daidan, about how we, as Sudanese, can turn the threats and risks of the Khartoum war into opportunities to establish a comprehensive national project.
Daidan graduated from the University of Khartoum and holds a masters degree from the Institute of African and Asian Studies at the same university. He has authored several books and research papers in the field of conflict resolution and also served as the director of the former Prime Minister Abdullah Hamdoks office.
Daidan says about the first rebellion against the Sudanese state, which has been referred to in political literature as the Torit Rebellion: Dealing with the act of bearing arms should not be subject to misleading descriptions. The reference to the rebellion being named after the city where it began, Torit, confined the Sudanese collective consciousness to seeing it as a rebellion somewhere distant and limited to Torit. Similarly, the political and institutional thinking of the state itself fell into the same populist trap, dealing with it based on it being the Torit Rebellion, without undertaking a political, social, cultural, and institutional analysis of the states behavior towards the armed rebellion.
The researcher, Daidan, believes that the result of this approach was that armed conflicts became isolated projects disconnected from the strategic planning of the Sudanese state. This led to their continuation, escalation, and development. The root causes remained unaddressed, and these wars exacerbated the states continuous collapse, affecting its geography, politics, economy, and society on a daily basis.
He adds that this significant flaw has now reached its peak in the current war and will lead to a catastrophic crisis greater than what we are experiencing in this war.
Daidan pointed out that we are now required to acknowledge that the previous prevailing political approach since 1955 in dealing with armed conflicts was superficial and reactive, lacking an institutional and realistic vision to uproot the causes from their origins since independence.
He emphasized that analyzing the causes, the involved parties internally and externally, the contested issues, the spark that ignited them, the interests linked to the war parties, and the political and social discourse produced by the war, positively and negatively, will expose the political actors, influential planners, and community leaders to the bare truth. This is essential to explore tools, means, trends, opportunities, and challenges to stop the war and reach national solutions with the participation of all Sudanese actors. Establishing a unified national platform to address the results of this analysis will lead to formulating a new national formula and defining a new project for the Sudanese state. This project should address the effects of these wars and establish the state according to this new vision that comprehends why we are in a state of continuous war before raising the flag of independence.
Daidan also emphasized the importance of reaching an agreement between political forces and societal actors on priorities that cannot tolerate disputes and the exclusionary conflicts between political and civil forces. Unifying efforts under a unified umbrella whose sole purpose is immediate cooperation to stop the war is crucial.
Daidan called for working with objectivity and shedding the skins of ideologies at this stage because throughout our history, we have failed to manage our ideological and intellectual diversity. We have not developed new concepts to realize that this diversity does not mean clinging to one direction only and denying others right to be different. The challenge is to work together to build our national symbol. Of course, it is not an individual but rather a project that represents all of us, forming the umbrella under which we gather with all our diversity and differences.
Daidan emphasizes that the ongoing war is the culmination, and it has serious repercussions on the sense of national belonging, social, racial, and ethnic composition, and culture. We must work, across our political and social formations, knowledge centers, and enlightenment institutions, to isolate it from the social and cultural context and confine it only within the political context. The danger lies in the mutual racist discourse between the parties, even among some leaders. This does not serve any party involved in the war, neither militarily nor politically. Instead, it leads to more national losses that the entire Sudanese people will bear, including all parties involved in this war.
Daidan warns about one of the crises of the current war and the importance of realizing its true significance. If we continue to approach this war in the same manner, no party will escape instability, whether geographically or ethnically. Sudan is not Yugoslavia, and the model of South Sudans secession is not applicable to the remaining part of Sudan due to its numerous complexities and interconnections. Anyone who believes that separating a part of the current Sudan would bring stability is looking at the reality with the same historical flaw, dealing with the crisis based on a flawed logic that only scratches the surface without delving into its complex depths, intricacies, and interplay.
Regarding the fragmentation that has affected the forces of the revolution and its various movements, Daidan sees that there are strong political centers that are not parties to the war and form an influential alliance of civil forces with an interest in security and political stability. It is their responsibility to lead the civil action to stop the war. These centers include the Freedom and Change Alliance, the Alliance for Radical Change, non-participating armed movements, and non-partisan civil society organizations. So why have these forces so far failed to read the distorted history in dealing with armed conflicts? Why have they not come together to work jointly to stop the war and begin to analyze and address the historical crisis in order to formulate a new vision for a new national project that represents us as Sudanese? Then, the question of how Sudan should be governed will not be as difficult to answer as it has historically been, posing a dilemma that people have been unable to solve due to a lack of vision and a retreat into self-interest and destructive nationalism.
