Nairobi Star (Nairobi)
Nasredeen Abdulbari
12 April 2011
opinion
After decades of oppression, suppression, and persecution, many nations in the Middle East and North Africa have now liberated themselves from “the state of fear” they have been living in for so many years. They have reached a point where oppression, suppression, and persecution have become unbearable. They have reached the point of “to be or not to be”. It is only at that point that nations normally become prepared to sacrifice their lives for a new day because they are left with only two options; either to die in and of fear or to die for freedom.
The unexpected collapse of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali notorious regime as a result of the uprising of the Tunisian people made other nations in North Africa and the Middle East believe that freedom is possible, and that living under irresponsible authoritarian governments is not inevitable. The spread of democracy, freedom, and human rights values and culture, thanks to technology, has created new convictions all over the globe that dictators could and should be confronted, no matter what that takes. This is one of the indirect impacts of the global tendency towards democracy and human rights. Persecuted and suppressed nations notice the positive impact freedom and peaceful transfer of power have made in many countries across the world with regard to stability, prosperity, justice, development, and equality. They are firsthand experiencing in their own countries the deleterious effects of autocracies and authoritarianism. An Egyptian protester at Tahrir Square expressed one of the differences between democracy and autocracy. She said that during her life she had seen three US Presidents, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, but in Egypt she had only seen one President Hosni Mubarak. By these simple words, the Egyptian protester expressed a basic democratic concept and value, i.e. peaceful transfer of power from one democratically elected person to another elected leader. In true democratic societies, the ruling party or organization should always be prepared to hand over power to another person, group, or organization, and, by the same token, the opposition should be prepared to lose or accept the continuation of the status qua, if the democratic process so declares. It is on this fundamental assumption that democracy, as one of the creative inventions of mankind, is based to ensure peaceful transfer of power, and therefore exclude any other means such as violence.
Democracy activists around the world hope this wave of revolutions that has so far succeeded in removing two notorious authoritarian regimes in North Africa would in the near future help people there establish political systems that are sincere and committed to democratic values and principles and fighting corruption that deprives good and committed citizens from opportunities they so much deserve.
As these revolutions continue to proliferate in the Middle East and North Africa, the Sudanese are asking themselves about when would they, too, be able to revolt. To me, this question reflects deep ignorance of Sudan’s history, but also unfamiliarity with the nature of revolutions themselves, which cannot simply be “copied and pasted”.
The Sudanese have, three decades ago, revolted against President Jaafar Nimeri’s government that ruled the country with an iron fist from 1969 through 1985. Back in 1964, the Sudanese also revolted against Ibrahim Abdoud’s government. However, the two revolutions did nothing more than removing two dictatorial regimes. It is a pity that leading political figures in the country speak about an Egyptian or Tunisian model revolution in Sudan. We do not need to learn neither from the Egyptian nor from the Tunisian, Yemenis, or Libyan revolutions, but from our own history of revolutions. They are the ones who should ask us about the lessons we have learned from our revolutionary experiences, the most important of which is that removing an authoritarian regime is something and being capable of establishing one that is democratic and free of corruption is something else.
The paralyzed Sudanese opposition parties and groups wittingly or unwittingly attempt to reproduce revolutions that we experienced several decades ago. They were given chances to change this country, but did not succeed in doing so basically because they themselves do not practice democracy in their own political institutions. Perhaps the Latin rule of nemo dat quod non habit (you cannot give what you do not have) applies perfectly to Sudanese political parties’ situation when it comes to democracy, freedom, and revolutions.
The future of Sudan will not be determined by what is currently happening in North Africa or the Middle East. Nor will it be determined by the current paralyzed political organizations, which count on what is going on there. The future of Sudan will be crafted and shaped by new forces and organizations, some of which are now in the throes of birth. These new forces and organizations will build on our history of struggles, and for that reason they will not adopt or reproduce traditional violent or peaceful revolutions. Only more advanced ways and mechanisms will help us get ahead.
Nasredeen Abdulbari is a Sudanese academic and lawyer. He is a lecturer in law at the International and Comparative Law Department at the University of Khartoum, Faculty of Law.
AllAfrica – All the Time
Link:
Revolution in Tunisia, Egypt an End to Oppressive Power