National War Claims

Mohammed Farouk Salman
Translated by Moatinoon

In all the worlds countries, democracy came as a result of the enforcement of the rule of law and the commitment to justice, not the other way around. In other words, the evolution of political systems and patterns of power in human experience has never seen democracy outside the context of being a subsequent legal exercise to humble people first on multiple legal provisions, including the States monopoly on legitimate violence and the safeguarding of rights and freedoms in accordance with the Supreme Law or the Constitution.

Democracy that provides for political majority rule does not give this majority the right to formulate the law in its mood, and outside the context of precedents and experiences that have made justice possible, while leaving law-making to the consent of the people, it has become the duty of the State, which must first commit itself to its rule, and many legislation and laws are not subject to broad public curiosity; Since the authority of science and knowledge has emerged as a basis for laws governing multiple aspects of human life, the provisions of the doctors or engineers profession are not subject to an example, other than the judgment of his peers in the event that these provisions are requested or even prosecuted.

The logic of the majority rule itself, which places power in the hands of an elite, in any society that is only a minority that even this majority represents only in accordance with a mutual bias between them; It is also governed by laws, but more importantly, the principles that allow for the independence of the authorities make censorship and accountability of political power possible and prevented from deviating, failing and threatening stability, in a way that promotes the principle of the peaceful circulation of power, whether by authorization or removal.

The failure of any delegated authority under a democratic civil system must not be seen as a failure of that system. The threat of political systems to our political system must cease, and unanimous access to the political system must be freed from these inadequate systems and temporary majorities towards a Dime meeting between all that does not judge the future from this logic of inadequacy. But by first being aware of it and always leaving the opportunity for future generations to achieve greater merit and entitlement to their well-being, rather than threatening them as the only way to gift it!

What matters is that access to a political system that safeguards rights and freedoms is at the centre of our political and social conflict. If in our history we are passing through, the parents of our first independence, and his mothers, if any, have not been informed of the founding tasks, but their entrance to power has won a founding consensus from behind the nations meeting to gain national independence.

Their mandate was based on the authority of knowledge and science they possessed, so much because these institutions of education were puzzles of the colonizer only to the extent that the learners horizon were aware of the duties and objectives of national emancipation. This was evident according to the performance of our national elite at the time and its transformation from consensus on the duties of establishment in accordance with the Independence Project towards disagreement about power in accordance with political projects that are timely only behind the aspiration of individuals and not the hopes of the nation.

This chapter of warfare is now the wrong outcome for more than half a century. We must not challenge many of the first fathers desire to establish the rule of law and promote the peaceful circulation of power. However, the horizon they made for these desires was short and threatening both the rule of law and the peaceful circulation of power. Our experience of national governance is marked by decades of turmoil and respect that cannot even be compared to the years of struggle against the foreign colonizer. Most of our decades of national rule become a hint of the syndrome of national colonialism, which has been based more on hegemony and imbalance than foreign occupation in its years of rule.

War now constitutes an extraordinary link in this conflict only by our ability to make it the final and final national war, the milestone in our history, with many opportunities for these milestones in this history, and in accordance with civil wars. The role of State institutions (first and foremost our national army) in promoting the pattern of hegemony and imbalance sponsored by our political class and affecting these institutions impartiality and professionalism ends. Making military security and defence institutions the greatest threat to our political system and security to turn the magic on the magician in this war, which is ignited by the forces friendly to the security and defence services, According to a military doctrine that was not patriotic, or fit for a national army for the years of its war imposed on it within its own country, Behind this armys leaders have also transformed into a political class with an ambition for power. s soldiers before the unarmed citizens.

This war does not enjoy everyones blessing, no matter how hard there are voices to cheer, or throats to bless it. Or its image of minds on a break with history as a historical world. This war has gone the way to the most inspiring peaceful revolution in the worlds modern history, and to the most totalitarian terrorist regime that has threatened this world. This war and other accusations made either to legitimize it or to reinforce our national division constitute a final legacy of the rescue regimes internal and external dimensions. It could have been avoided if the Sudanese and Sudanese revolution had a more rational leadership and belief in the peaceful nature of the revolution, or within the Islamists and their fallen regime, a wiser, less fallacious leadership of history and its rule.

This war has been triggered by a lack of maturity and wisdom. Its evolving scenarios have no limited options and fewer opportunities: either we submit to the opportunities offered by the war alone, depending on the ability of either party to resolve them. Not through the current balance of power, but in accordance with the ability of any of them to achieve a qualitative difference that may lead to the armys adoption of other friendly forces and to the reaffirmation of the fragility of the States monopoly of violence, an option that has so far been clearly available to both parties, and with the same capability as the army to rejuvenate and create compelling forces, the Rapid Support Forces Forces clearly adopt an old strategy in war: Sheep, robbery, which will make it possible to create bigger contradictions within them in the future, and more violations now!

The option of war alone is without prospects of international or regional intervention in favour of either party: The army in accordance with the interests of regional parties to the stability of the Sudan, or rapid support itself through a formula that may go beyond even its regional allies, As a core player in a larger international conflict than a region that extends only east and through super-States Croatia, competing with them may tempt other parties to offer their services so as to turn against ending the war and ensuring the Sudans exhaustion and disintegration or his inferiority, until he gets out of the ability to offer his military services again in line with Bashirs last days. Or according to the decline in demand for these services according to the options of political solutions now possible in more than one front in which his forces participated, they are options for internationalization that would be better dropped by dropping the war option itself and reintroducing the Sudan as a supporter of regional stability and world peace.

I still see one of the reasons for the peaceful nature of the Sudanese revolution and the collective conscience and consciousness of the war, more than a threat and intimidation. By a long experience within Sudanese societies, I have experienced and paid for the war, including the restructuring of its geography and this fragility in the form of the States monopoly on violence, the erosion of national will and the faltering of democratic civil transition.

National wars may be an unnecessary, albeit unnecessary, chapter in completing the conditions of awareness of the great political and social transformation imposed by political dissolution, but they remain, namely, the bills for such political dissolution itself, and its high costs. But through awareness of the unnecessary nature of this chapter, national wars can be a milestone in the birth of nations and peoples only by rejecting them and shaping an inherent national position on war. It is capable of imposing its conditions for the enforcement of the rule of law and emerging from the imbalances of our political, economic and development meeting, not by submitting to the conditions of war and gambling again with the foundations of the State and the objectives of the revolution in freedom, peace and justice and keeping the door legitimate to threatening our right to life and to a better existence.