There is a difference – Mona Abu Zaid – political realism between the necessities of consensus and the limits of fairness

“We cannot end the war with the same tools that ignited it, nor building the state with the same minds that dismantled it.” The writer ..!

In light of the complexities of the fragmented Sudanese scene between the fire of war and peace concerns, the vision of the future builders party emerges “the future of the political process in the post -war Sudan” as an attempt to reset the national compass through a political approach that takes into account the complexities of reality and the balances of power ..!

In this vision, there is a proposal that balances strict political realism and selective pragmatism, and it stems from a central hypothesis that the end of the war can only be military, but also requires a comprehensive political settlement that takes into account the interests of the parties involved, affected and beneficial alike. “

The vision in its entirety includes a number of strengths and positives that are worth reference, with reservations on some points, including that it acknowledges that this war is not merely a military conflict, but an expression of deep political failure, and the intertwining of internal tribal, military, political and external interests, and this recognition is a mature step in making solutions ..!

And it calls for a comprehensive political agreement that does not exclude anyone, but rather includes everyone who participated, affected or benefited from the war, and it is with this understanding that establishes a broad negotiating framework that may be the basis for sustainable peace. Among the important positives is that it distinguishes between the leadership of the Rapid Support Militia – Al Daklu – and the tribal rules supporting it, and proposes a transitional mechanism to ensure the integration of these rules in the future without collective stigmatization or revenge, and this is an intelligent and socially intelligent orientation ..!

The vision does not open the door wide for the return of the Islamists, but it sets a condition for renewing their political faces, and it acknowledges the importance of the impact of the December revolution, and this approach shows political flexibility and the ability to align between change and assimilation ..!

It also suggests that the army lead the transitional period in cooperation with the government of technocrats for a limited period, in an attempt to reconcile the necessity of stabilizing the state and the demands of returning to civil rule ..!

It also includes a proposal to involve the armed movements in a “peace council” instead of enabling them to the executive authority, and this is a balance between recognition of its field weight and the failure to reproduce military quotas in government ..!

It also shows talking about communication with countries such as the Emirates and Chad through a neutral international party – to address its motives for supporting the war – aware of the pressing regional factors and seeks to solve them with dialogue, not escalation ..!

But the analytical reading of the vision also raises a number of observations, most notably that it gives the army – specifically the Commander in Chief Abdel -Fattah al -Burhan – is a pivotal position in the transitional phase, not only as the military commander, but as head of the military political council. Which may reproduce another version of the military control coated with realism ..!

The vision of the future builders party recognizes that the rapid support militia is unrealistic, and suggests that the tribes associated with it be absorbed, provided that the Al -Duqlu is excluded, that is, it stands at the boundaries of the “projection of the public right” in exchange for “the special right”, and this approach that deals with justice indefinitely, and opens the door to political deals at the expense of crimes against humanity that occurred in Khartoum and Darfur ..!

The vision recognizes the active and decisive role of Islamists in the war alongside the army, and calls for their political participation on the condition of presenting “new faces”, but this proposition lacks real specific guarantees that prevent the reproduction of the political and economic empowerment project in the name of the new line ..!

The vision includes the forces of freedom and change in the list of “supporters of rebellion”, and this definitive ruling – if we look at it with the eyes of the neutral international community – is not satisfied with excluding the most important civil bloc in the post -revolution stage, but rather opens the way for the monopoly of “revolutionary legitimacy” by the military actors and their allies ..!

The party’s vision is satisfied with a general proposal on “communicating with countries supporting the rebellion” without providing a clear vision of Sudan’s relationship with the region or the international community after the war. But in light of an overlapping international reality, the absence of an integrated vision of external diplomacy is a large loophole in any transitional political project ..!

The vision of the future builders party tries to answer a big question, “How do we end the war without drowning in the illusion of peace”, which in this sense has the virtue of direct and practical proposition, but in return it does not give some major questions – about justice, accountability and real civil transition – its share of attention ..!

The importance of some major questions is the possibility of the current moment shifting from an opportunity to re -establish a transmission turn, through a new focal point for the same old power, but with new names!

munaabuzaid2@gmail.com