Omar Al -Daqir puts difficult questions in front of Kamel Idris

By Omar Al-Daqir- the most prominent observation in the speech that was delivered yesterday, Dr. Kamel Idris- the Prime Minister- is his ignorance of the most present and the most cruel and painful in Sudan: the war that has been burning for more than two years, which has caused a humanitarian catastrophe classified as the worst in the world.

The absence of the reference to the human catastrophe means a betrayal of its victims from those who are given to the camps of displacement and those who stand in the queues of the takaia and the bearers of the memory of pain and sadness as a result of the calamities of death, violations, displacement and destruction, but ignoring the talk about war and the strategy of dealing with it, it regrets the realism of promises that the speech contains .. How can policies be drawn to bring well A destroyer was not a solution, and she was not mentioned in the “speech of hope”?!

Does Dr. Idris aspire to initiate the international or regional community to provide reconstruction aid, while the war is still raging and not waving it?! Can he attract external investment – as he promised – in such circumstances? Is it expected that international financing institutions will be released from the frozen aid since the October 25 coup, which is devoted to supporting the basic services and infrastructure sectors – not to mention entering into negotiations to conclude new financing agreements – in the absence of a clear vision to end the war and restore stability?!

🔹 The discourse of the appointed Prime Minister seemed to be written to suit another country or a coming moment, not Sudan at this raising historical moment ..

The speech used scientific vocabulary: talk about transparency, efficiency, vision, message, measurable plans and performance indicators. But all of this assumes the existence of a coherent state with a unified authority, which does not apply to Sudan at its current moment. The government speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister does not control the entire lands of the country – because of the war he ignored in his speech – which means its inability to extend its authority and implement its policies in the general states of the country, and thus its inability to achieve “a good living for every Sudanese”, according to the central promise in the speech … and even in the areas under the control of the promised government, large numbers of citizens suffer from a living and depend on The deterioration of basic services, while talking about “Recife Live” appears to be a luxury that is related to their reality. As their urgent priority is to secure the necessary limit of needs that establish their hands and preserve their dignity.

On the other hand, Dr. Kamel Idris described his planned government as a combination of “Al -Hasaniyin”: it is on the one hand of the government of technocrats that depend on efficiency and experience; On the other hand, free of partisans .. It is true that there are wide calls, based on some justifications, demanding that the government be in certain circumstances without partisanships. But depicting partisan affiliation as a good – by declaring that the exclusion of partisans represents one of the “Hasanin” – is an unfair stigma for organized political practice, and is based on the principle of political pluralism. Party is neither a pillar nor a deficiency, and it is one of the pillars of the democratic structure that organizes participation in public affairs.

Moreover, this proposal clashes with a known reality: the promised government, according to expectations and leaks, will include personalities belonging to the armed movements and other forces signed on the Juba Peace Agreement, which are ultimately parties with party political affiliations. Is the condition of non -affiliation with the party – which Idris announced – is interpreted by request? Or did he not succeed in persuading the parties to the Juba agreement with it? This contradiction suggests that this condition is not presented as a general principle, but rather is used as a selective tool.

🔹 At the end of his speech, Dr. Kamel Idris talked about the need for “statesmen” who are able to advance the country, and it is most likely that he means those who possess efficiency, experience and honesty of men and women alike .. However, the language remains a meaningful meaning and it was more successful to include women explicitly, especially in a country in which they played roles that are struggled in the struggle for change, and it is still waiting for them.

🔹 It is striking that Dr. Kamel Idris had spoken in his first speech – after the performance of the department – about the importance of the Sudanese dialogue “which does not exclude anyone” as a way to solve the national crisis, but this approach was completely absent from his last speech – just as the war was absent – and no mention of the dialogue, nor to any inclusive political path that leads to a negotiating solution that addresses the roots of the crisis.

This absence raises a legitimate question: Did the Prime Minister recover from his previous proposal, or is the powers of his government to be reduced and are prevented from approaching the war file and dealing with the path of a political solution? And if that is – especially in light of the amendments to the constitutional document that made the Foreign Policy Administration, the Central Bank and the security services under the responsibility of the Sovereign Council – what remains for the “government of hope” to do it?! Or is it just an administrative facade of limited powers?!

🔹 The weakness of the weakness – the one who is the back of “Hope” – in the speech of Dr. Kamel Idris does not lie in the abundance of promises or the ceiling of aspirations, but rather in escaping from talking about war and not making any vision to deal with it; What destroys the basis on which these promises are based, and hope does not remain an outlet .. Hope is not made by neglecting the reality of war, its causes and repercussions, but rather recognizing this reality and confronting it with a conscious strategy.

🔹 Finally: We are not in the place of ridicule or the release of negative rulings towards people or intentions, but rather we search – like many others – by leaving our country out of its excessive crisis .. We do not claim that we are the most keen on the public interest, but rather we look at the contributions of others and believe that seeing salvation is produced by a collective national mind.

What matters to us – today and every day – is that the compass is directed towards what benefits people, and to make efforts from everyone to stop the war, and to agree on a social contract that preserves the unity of our country and mobilizes the energies of its people to national building on new foundations that guarantee the achievement of the conditions of a decent life for all without discrimination.