Shafi’…,’?

As I See It 

adil ELBaz

1

 Dr. Shafi’ Khidr has always been regarded with respect and admiration. I used to consider him one of the wise figures capable of contributing to curbing hate speech and bringing rationality to a scene that had lost its mind. But I was disappointed when Shafi’ joined the herd, echoing the same ideas and language. His experience and knowledge did not help him in making sound political judgments.

2

This week, I stopped at Dr. Shafi’s latest article, published on August 15 in Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper (A Dialogue on International Efforts to Stop the War in Sudan). In it, he reviewed the events of a virtual seminar that brought together a group of political leaders, civil society figures, and independent personalities. As he mentioned, it was a “dialogue session on international and regional mediation efforts to stop the war in Sudan.”

From his account, it seemed to me that this group was from the same species as the “Taggaddam” herd, which Shafi’ had joined. I don’t mean “herd” as an insult, but what Shafi’ wrote about the seminar mirrored the same exhausted and outdated ideas that had been repeatedly echoed by the “Taggaddam” and the “Forces of Freedom and Change” (FFC). Those who keep repeating these statements, both in form and content, are part of the herd, their minds following their ears. Even if they claim independence, it’s only a superficial veneer.

3

What did the participants say during the seminar? Three points caught my attention. The first was: “A ceasefire cannot be achieved without these forces agreeing on a vision or a declaration of principles to end the war, addressing the roots of the Sudanese crisis, and answering questions related to the future of the Rapid Support Forces, the leadership of the current armed forces, and accountability for the crime of igniting the war and the violations that followed.”

What’s new here that deserves to be highlighted in an article by an intellectual and thinker, rather than a shallow news report? We’ve heard these dull tunes a thousand times. Why haven’t these civil forces, who continue to pour this nonsense into our ears, produced a vision for a ceasefire after more than a year of war? Why don’t they answer the questions regarding the Rapid Support Forces and the army?

Since the change, these civil forces have failed to answer any fundamental question about Sudanese political life, and yet their writers continue to bombard us with what “should” be done. Well, why don’t you do what should be done? Or is it just empty talk for consumption? If these forces are incapable of forming a unified vision on all crucial issues, how do they expect to govern? We’ve seen what these forces did when they ruled during the “Farm Gang” era—without vision, without guidance, and without a clear plan!

4

During the virtual seminar, the participants “praised the establishment of the International Coalition for Peace and Saving the Sudanese People, following the recent Geneva talks, and called for its reinforcement, better coordination among its components, and expansion by adding international and regional parties such as the Troika, IGAD, and the European Union.”

Now, look at this: they praised the “Coalition for Saving Lives and Peace,” which is actually a coalition to fuel the war, not to create peace. This coalition has bypassed these same civil forces, and the reason they welcome it is that it leans towards the Janjaweed and is against the Sudanese government, conspiring against it. This was evident at the Geneva Conference and at last week’s Human Rights Conference, also held in Geneva. The “Life-Taking Coalition” is trying to impose its conditions on the government, but it will fail. The virtual participants didn’t stop at welcoming this coalition; they even called for including IGAD, the EU, and the Troika, all of which support the Janjaweed!

The same stance of “Taggaddam” was adopted by these civil forces, which claimed independence, along with Dr. Shafi’, who failed to produce a unique political discourse and refused to formally join “Taggaddam,” but at the same time played their same tunes. Dr. Shafi’ puzzles me—he is a case worth studying. He is frightened, trembling at the thought of his old party, and while he can criticize anything, he refrains from criticizing the Communists. However, he pours his wrath on the Islamists. He is not officially in “Taggaddam,” but he is cozying up to them and adopting their rhetoric. He is a friend of the British, with an eye on the Americans, advising Al-Burhan while being anti-military. He avoids angering the Emirates and never mentions them, while striving hard to please the Egyptians, even becoming the godfather of their recent conference.

The strangest thing is that Dr. Shafi’, in private conversations, talks about the Islamists and the necessity of moving past exclusion and the intense polarization, which is a completely different narrative from what he publicly voices. This is the flaw of some elites involved in politics—they lack integrity and the courage to openly declare their positions, fearing the herd’s reaction. Dr. Shafi’s case is indeed perplexing.

5

Now, look at this free talk: “Preserving the unity of the country within a federal democratic system that reflects diversity, building a single professional and national army that stays away from politics and economic activities, dismantling the totalitarian structure of the Inqadh regime, and ensuring the political process is inclusive, excluding only the dissolved National Congress Party and its affiliates.”

What’s new here that deserves to have an online seminar dedicated to it? Isn’t this the same empty rhetoric that’s been repeated since before the change? So, what have you done to make this a reality? We’ve seen how you managed the country and the economy, handing it over on a silver platter to Hemeti, with the expert founder and the Bedouin economist leading the way!

6

And then, look at this nonsense: “The political process should be inclusive, excluding only the dissolved National Congress Party and its affiliates.” Isn’t this the same framework that led to the war? The civil forces have learned nothing from their past experiences, acting as if the war never happened and as if Sudan wasn’t destroyed by this exclusionary and destructive idea!

Dr. Shafi’ Khidr has not learned the lessons of exclusion in Sudan’s history. He knows very well that in the 1960s, civil forces tried to exclude the Communist Party, which led to the May coup, carried out by Shafi’s own party. The coup resulted in the execution of party leaders, including the great labor leader Shafi’ Ahmed Al-Sheikh. Will anyone take heed?

The civil forces tried again to exclude the Islamic Front in the 1980s, leading to the Inqadh coup. After the recent change, the Forces of Freedom and Change tried to exclude the entire political arena through the framework agreement, and that led to the war. Hasn’t a politician and intellectual like Dr. Shafi’ learned any lessons from all this history? Incredible! He and his companions have come to repeat the same mistakes that various political forces have committed at every historical juncture. Unbelievable.

7

Finally, laugh along with Dr. Shafi’ and the online seminar participants who spend their time spouting nonsense, calling for a return to the “civil democratic path of the December Revolution.” Was there ever a civil democratic path, Dr. Shafi’? When? Was it when the Empowerment Committee arrested people to the point of death and confiscated their money and property without any charges or court rulings? Or when people were whipped in “Cordoba” and even prevented from breaking their fast in public squares? At that time, the fake democrats with big claims and small consciences were struck silent. The freedom-for-all loudmouths had disappeared—my regards to Dr. Al-Nour Hamad. (I’m coming for you, doctor—I haven’t forgotten, you’re always on my mind.) When was there ever a civil democratic path, Dr. Shafi’? Was it when Hemeti was the ruler and head of the Economic Committee? Please, drop these ridiculous claims; they are beneath you!

8

Oh, the online cave dwellers, this fraudulent notion of a democratic path and the deception of the public with the old revolutionary rhetoric for political gain is just empty talk. This currency has expired and can’t even buy an onion in the political marketplace anymore. Times have changed, Hulagu, indeed they have changed! To all the farm and online gangs—talking about a return to a civil democratic path! Shafi’, man, say something else. They call you a thinker, right? Where’s the intellectual sharpness, or has it been lost among the herd’s nonsense?