Transparency in FFC’s Era (1-6)

By: Ibrahim Osman

1. Secularism

The leaders of Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC) talk a lot about their distinction from other entities through transparency, but the last people who have the right to give lectures on “transparency” are the FFC group and the coordination of Democratic Civil Forces (Taqaddum). Their lack of transparency is not a marginal matter related to the details, but rather to the basis of their secular project, and if the lack of transparency is linked to the project itself, then a long list of non-transparent actions and words will inevitably result.

Among these non-transparent statements are what Wajdi Saleh said (Have your ever heard us one day mentioning secularism? Have your ever heard us one day that we said Sudan is a secular state?), and what Mohammad Naji Al-Asam said (The issue of the relationship between religion and the state is not on our agenda in the Forces of Freedom and Change and we will not impose it on the people because we are Democrats, and we will never mention it.) Their words combined truth and lies, so what they said was true in terms of their complete avoidance of the word secularism, and false in terms of concealing the truth, which is that this avoidance was due to their knowledge of the bad reputation of the word secularism, not their unwillingness to apply it, nor their failure to implement it. For this desire, this brings lack of transparency to the extreme.

In open deception, they adopt the term “civil state,” and because they fear that the term will fall short of the meaning of secularism and not fully achieve it, they add “which stands at the same distance from religions,” and sometimes for greater ambiguity they add identities and cultures so that the expression becomes (..which stands at the same distance) of literatures, identities and cultures) as stated in their agreement with Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Addis Ababa.

It is Quoted by Dr. Mohammad Youssef, a member of the Al-Hilu Movement, that they told them about their agreement with the movement’s secular proposal and suggested an alternative name because they believe that: (Explicitly stating the word “secular” could create problems for them with citizens, large groups of whom are still dominated by ignorance), and they did not deny it!

And it is quoted by Dr. Mohammad Jalal Hashem, on the authority of Ustaz/ Nasr Al-Din Abdul-Bari: They are working to implement secularism, but gradually, and the gradual manner in which it was applied was Piety, and lack of transparency, and the dismissal of Dr. Omar Al-Qarai was linked to his “transparency” that was above average, and his lack of commitment to a gradual approach that did not attract attention or provoke people to a significant extent.

In an old article of hers, Ustaz/ Rasha Awad said: the current spokeswoman for the (Taqaddum): “I reject the approach of appeasement, and the avoidance of decisive and radical confrontations”, and she called for bypassing Sharia (a decisive one), and criticized the excuse of the presence of Christians to reject Sharia, and criticized (the talk that what Al-Numeiri and Ingaz implemented is not the correct Sharia) Because in her belief, there is no correct Sharia law at all, but rather (a contemporary political term made by “ordinary people” and who have no religious sanctity), but this “transparency” completely evaporated when FFC came to power and the approach of piety, gradualism, and inconclusive confrontation, and the justification for distorting Sharia law and the presence of Christians became the basis, perhaps because of its conviction that the stage of power requires this approach as long as it does not obstruct the application of secularism!

The infection of lack of transparency regarding secularism has spread to FFC allies, including the group of Dr. Kamal Omar, and the group’s Islamic background shows their lack of transparency in the form of contradictions. Kamal Omar, who says in front of his party members (religion is in the constitution, we are responsible for it) and adds (if the word “civil” is not amended in this draft transitional constitution, we will take a political position and deviate from this constitution) He is the same one who adopts the opposite rhetoric in his defense of the secular constitution and says, “We are prepared to interpret civility to mean against military, not secularism,” and “We have had enough of talking about religion,” and “The framework agreement cannot be opened,” which is the agreement that emphasizes the civility of the state which sedated the membership of his party that they would withdraw if it was not amended!

Also among the contradictions of Dr. Kamal Omar said that while he was marketing the FFC Constitution and Foreigners, he was trying to reassure the membership of his party and saying that the transitional period would not resolve the issue of secularism, and that the matter would be resolved in the elections, but in his reassurance to one of the secularists who were afraid of the elections, he said to him, “You have a problem with the Islamists gathering and bring about a law that they will bring an Islamic constitution? This will never happen again, it will never happen again!

There are many paradoxes that resulted from the lack of transparency regarding the secular project, including:

Its owners need to promise externally and deceive internally!

* They cannot show their enthusiasm for it, and therefore they are less able to enthuse the masses.

* They need action, not talk, with the strange assumption that action is less observable, and therefore less provocative, than talk.

* They cannot produce slogans directly and clearly related to it for the masses to repeat.

* The only slogan is (Civilian) which they wanted people to repeat like parrots, and they even responded with it to Mr. Baroud Sandal when he asked them what they meant by a civil state that stands at the same distance from religions, as Kamal Omar narrated!

* Shame among people is not the shame of the title to be removed by avoiding it, but rather it is the shame of the project itself. Therefore, the harshest accusation leveled against them by their opponents is the intensity of their loyalty to their project, and the best defense is their denial of this loyalty!

* For reasons related to lack of transparency, they did not add what they achieved in their secular project to the list of their “achievements.”

* They did not add it to the topics of the famous “Thank you Hamdouk” campaign.

* They did not speak loudly about the damage to the secularization project resulting from the dissolution of the partnership on October 25, 2021.

* They did not add secularism to the list of justifications for their return to power.

* They did not explicitly promise to take advanced steps in the secularization project after their return to power.