Sudan: Lessons from the Bitterness of History and the Inevitability of National Consensus

By William Cody. The political history of Sudan, from its actual independence and the beginnings of its major crises in the mid-1950s (specifically since the Torit mutiny in 1955) to the devastating war ongoing today, carries a record full of harsh and bitter lessons. Sudan, with its historical weight and ancient diversity, has remained a hostage to recurring cycles of conflict and destruction, as if history were repeating itself in a more brutal and bloody language. The contemporary Sudanese tragedy perfectly embodies the story of the "Owner of the Garden" mentioned in human and religious heritage; the one who swore to hoard the blessings for himself and deprive partners and the poor of their right to its fruits, so the result of arrogance and the rejection of the other was a total destruction that consumed the garden and all that was in it. Likewise, the insistence of successive hegemony forces—whether civilian or military—on monopolizing power and marginalizing partners has led the country to this dangerous turning point. Sudan belongs to everyone: No exclusion and no arrogance. Sudan is not the exclusive property of a specific faction, ideology, or component, but rather a unique mosaic of cultures, ethnicities, and regions. · The inevitability of active existence: No individual or group can feel true belonging unless they are guaranteed an active and influential presence in building the nation and making its decisions. · The risks of arrogance: Policies of exclusion and a false sense of cultural or political superiority have always been the spark that ignites the embers of rebellion and war. The current war is merely the inevitable result of decades of ignoring this diversity and attempting to erase it or control it by force. Managing the country by consensus, not by majority and the power of arms: In countries with complex ethnic and cultural diversity like Sudan, experience proves the impossibility of stability through mechanisms of "pure numerical democracy" alone or through the barrel of a gun. · The failure to resolve conflict by force: Decades of fighting have proven that weapons do not solve an issue, but rather multiply the tragedy and create a generation of hatred and vendettas. · The alternative of historical consensus: There is no alternative to managing the state through comprehensive national consensus and fair settlements that place the nation's interest above all considerations, so that everyone feels they are winners in peace, not defeated in conflict. A constitution that reflects the face of the nation like a mirror: The solid foundation for any permanent stability is the social contract represented by the constitution. · A mirror for components: The coming Sudanese constitution must act as a clear mirror in which all components of the Sudanese people see themselves, without exception or marginalization. · Rights and duties: When every citizen—regardless of their race, religion, or region—finds their rights and freedoms protected in the supreme constitutional document, the motive to bear arms is removed, and the justification for fighting falls away. Conclusion and Question: The pure blood of the Sudanese people flowing today in this absurd war must be a heavy price sufficient to awaken the national conscience among both civilian and military elites alike. The most important and final lesson is that the homeland is large enough for everyone, that hegemony is a failed language, and that consensus and justice are the only lifebuoy. Will the Sudanese forces learn the lessons and grasp the profound historical lesson, or will they continue in the same vicious circle for history to repeat itself in a more catastrophic form? morboor@gmail.com The post Sudan: Lessons from the Bitterness of History and the Inevitability of National Consensus appeared first on Sudanile.