Hatred and Discourse
Amir Babikir Abdullah
Hatred speech has never been absent from the Sudanese sphere, as it has remained prevalent in many parts of the world, albeit varying in its extent and impact depending on the contexts that produce it and the environments that embrace it. Sudan has witnessed the escalation of this discourse at historical junctures, with one of its prominent consequences being the division of Sudan into two states. The ongoing war currently represents its highest manifestations.
Breaking down the concept of "hatred speech," we find it composed of two terms that must come together to form a unit that can be dealt with and addressed along with its manifestations and consequences. Hatred is feelings expressed in two contradictory states within the context we are discussing: a sense of superiority or a sense of inferiority. It is a feeling associated with possessing actual or perceived attributes and privileges that are feared to be lost or diminished, or conversely, stemming from the loss of those attributes and privileges that one sees as inherently or falsely entitled to, or forcibly deprived of.
Such feelings spread and intensify in societies and countries where justice, law, and their institutions are absent or marginalized, and where social systems of oppression and domination govern. They manifest in forms of contempt, enmity, and hostility towards the other. Such feelings are more pronounced in countries and societies with a pluralistic nature that fail, by their very nature, to manage the differences and diversity among their components.
The second term, discourse, refers to the way of expressing those feelings of contempt, enmity, and hostility. Expression can take various forms ranging from speech to writing and using all expressive arts to convey the concerned message, reaching its peak through the use of violence to the stage of actual warfare.
Many challenges confront campaigns against the spread of hatred speech in Sudans current situation, a situation where the seeds of this discourse have been sown over years, not just at the moment of war. The difficulties arise from the absence of systems capable of control, especially with the fluidity of the state and its apparatuses.
Addressing the spread of hatred speech requires multifaceted approaches, primarily focusing on stopping the voices of bullets and war and supporting all local, regional, and international efforts leading to that end. Additionally, combating hatred speech requires utilizing all available means.
After the cessation of war, efforts will need to be intensified, especially in promoting the value of diversity that characterizes our country. Hatred speeches have turned our blessing of diversity into a curse. The effects of hatred speech in the post-war period will continue, and their repercussions need to be minimized through intensive and continuous work and pressure to enact laws that combat it, requiring extensive reforms in laws and law enforcement agencies.
All of this will not be effective unless efforts leading to the cessation of war result in an agreement on full-fledged civilian democratic governance protected by a unified army, stepping out of the political scene and into the states domain. A constitution based on pluralism and diversity with capacities to manage differences and reduce conflicts is also necessary.
