Emad Al Blake
The anniversary of the April 1985 uprising passed silently. It was
marginalized and forgotten. It seems as if an alienated memory is trying to say
that history has been deviated from its path or disoriented. Is it a revolution
or an uprising? Or is it simply one of the curses that passed in the modern
history of Sudan as tens of events thought to be central and efficient in
deciding the future of the Nation, but finished to the nothingness, to throw us
once again in the initial point? We must simply remember that a proper review
should take place after quite a reasonable time in order to be able to see the
impact of the events. Did we enter in a new phase or is History is just
reproducing itself in the same way. I think that this is our reality, and maybe
worse…
For half a century, Sudanese are judging two events as milestones
and historical, the revolution of 21 October 1964 and the uprising of 6 Avril
1985. The two events symbolize the idea of change and the capability of
revolutionary action and revolting in order to change the reality to a better
one. But that didn’t happen. Even though, the negative result should never
weaken hopes or stop efforts of picking the positive points in those historical
events far from the instant impact. This is a point which we have to consider
deeply and focus on.
There are many revolutions in the history of the Humanity which
didn’t lead to clear concrete results on the long term. Others finished in
failure. What has been defined as the Revolutions of the Arab Spring is
revealed to be nothingness and oblivion. It finished to death, destruction,
devastation and disintegration of nations, states and peoples. We witnessed a
more horrible Arab World. This doesn’t mean I am defending the former regimes
or the totalitarian governments. I rather want to say that things that appear
good in the beginning are not always that good, particularly when we assume
that our Peoples hadn’t been well trained for change and revolutionary action.
This is a big and complicates issue in itself. It is related to the
need of wider and more open thinking which is supposed to include all the
society and be generalized in all political, cognitive and educative patterns
as well as ethics before it should be transferred to the practical level. If it
is necessary to transform the societies, then that should be in a positive way
making of the concerned country or nation an effective and ethically advanced
factor enjoying freedoms and civilization conditions necessary for change.
Revolutions are doubtlessly positive actions. But such are the
Revolutions dotted with deep thoughts and having all the elements necessary for
sustainability. They should be based on a cognitive renaissance of thoughts
paving the way and establishing their pillars as was the case of the French
Revolution for example. The intellectual content and the rethinking of all the
aspects of life are the main bases of future Revolutionizing
Quick change, military coups and even savage armed interventions and
protests of millions for a single day might change the power in any place. Such
acts might take the country from a shape of power to a new one. But should that
change the real nature of regimes? Are they capable of readjusting its values,
relation with world, its thinking manners, its customs and traditions, its ways
of existing and reacting with its identity as well as its vital fates or the
foresight pushing it to find a position in the globe?
Mostly, the given image is that the regime is defined as the
existing and affecting power. While the accurate definition of the regime is
its aspect as the power of Domination that should be changed. It is the social
patterns which created or fashioned the power and the domination. If that
structural combination is not submitted to deep rethinking and dismantled on
all its levels, any mobilization of social forces in the name of change would
be nothing else but a vicious cycle which will take us to the initial point or
even to a worse one. The true movement forward results from a serious
definition in its practical and applied aspect of revolutionizing and change.
It begins with smaller cycles and goes forward to occupy more space. It begins
with changing individual ways of thinking, seeking and following a good built
model, fighting corruption, raising morals and spirits in the name of openness
and tolerance and not by hatred, hesitation and doubt but with full
consciousness. That consciousness should be capable of differentiation and
recognition of false hypotheses and not as happens when some people launch
hatred pretending to be replacing our world with another one.
The real force behind revolutionary action is rational and not
spontaneous. It is not born of a moment of temporal reaction or Superstructure
movement secreted by a particular class, a party, an armed or a sectarian group
in order to tighten the grip on power in the institutions of the State or the
society while leaving the rest of the scene weak and neglected without any
establishing which might enable it to realize the meaning of uprising or
revolting.
The April 1985 uprising has many elements of power that can be
useful. But it is submitted to the general cadre of not being the fruit of
cultural or cognitive "constraints" or desire to build a better
rational society. It has produced a more cruel society and protrusions of
extremism in terms of the perception of the human identity and its role in life
in general. It paved the way to enter in a stage under which Sudan is still
suffering, under the brunt of the extension of the power of ideological
discourse. This stage is marked by the victory of the worldly judgment on
account of religion in its abstract, active and positive form. We saw how the
collapse of values has eexacerbated and spread in all the community so that we
can say that a disaster struck the Sudanese social life. Some people link it to
the economic conditions. Yes that may have an impact. Others may assume and
generalize saying “it is politics”. But spectacular, is part of the manifestations
of the incident actually, change of the cognitive pattern and its inefficient
functioning with the traditions of tolerance, love of others, compassion and
other forms of traditional Sudanese tournament.
Perhaps the clear distinction of the change that happened reveals
that a stereotyping has been applied on the collective mind towards negative
Ideological orientation. It established a closed ego and oriented people to
tribal hatred, physical superiority and formalism, deepened the divide between
the people of Sudan and reduce their tendency of self-confidence. The result of
the change which occurred after the uprising of April 1985, as observed today,
is a coup against the values for which it was supposed to take place.
Someone may say “No April 1985 uprising has nothing to do with
this”. But we must stand for a moment to realize that the crisis started before
that. It began since the emergence of the so-called modern Sudanese state and
the exit of the British from the country. The crisis exist since the first and
continual attempts to patch up the dream of the national state, a dress that
was not yet completed while its fabric changes from time to time between the
various partisan passions and conflicts between military who want a dress
detailed on their size. However, the clearest vision reveals that in April
uprising was the end of a crisis and was the beginning of a most complex crisis
in a fragile democracy which is not deeply rooted. That April uprising
democracy ended once again to a military accompanied by lonely torments. The
steak was and is still the human. Change will not be a call to future unless
our consciousness mechanisms the way of our imagination building change and we
become really active and based on great correctreferences.
The Citizen
newspaper
Khartoum
تعليقات