Haroun’s Arrest: “Are the Hands Whose Swords Protect You Equal to Those Whose Swords Have Bereaved You?” (2 – 2)

As I See

Adel El-Baz

1

In the first installment of this article, I said that whenever a rational state decides to take a political decision, whether major or minor, it opens its political account books and asks a series of questions: What are the motives behind the decision? What is the appropriate timing? What gains will it achieve? What reactions, effects, and potential repercussions might it trigger? And what messages are intended to be conveyed through such a decision?

Based on the precise answers provided by the various competent agencies, a political balance sheet is then drawn up, and the decision is issued accordingly.

In the first installment, I examined the motives behind the decision and its timing. In this installment, I will attempt to imagine the gains that those behind Haroun’s arrest might expect to secure, according to a straightforward political cost-benefit calculation, as well as the possible consequences and repercussions.

2

Let us begin.

I imagined that those who made the decision had deluded themselves into believing that certain parties, either at home or abroad, would applaud them for throwing a prominent Islamist figure behind bars without due process of law, in an explicit violation of freedom of expression as guaranteed by the governing Constitutional Document.

The question is: What exactly are they trying to prove?

That they will not tolerate Islamists, at a time when they have shown extensive tolerance toward all the killers, both at home and abroad!

This is an important message to those concerned, even if they never asked for it.

The authorities are not required to agree with Haroun, nor are his opponents required to agree with him. What is required is that the law be the ultimate arbiter. If anything he said constitutes a violation, it should be clearly identified and the appropriate legal procedures followed. Political disagreement, however, must never become grounds for arrest.

On the other hand, as I imagine it, those behind the decision first want to demonstrate that the Islamists are powerless and that the authorities can do whatever they please with them: use them as fighters in defense of the state, then arrest them whenever they speak out.

In other words, they have been reduced to such a state of humiliation that they have become playthings in the hands of the authorities. They must remain silent, fight, defend, and die as martyrs without uttering a word!

Politics is forbidden to them, but death is permitted. And they are supposedly incapable of doing anything about it!

I imagine this is the message being sent to the Sudanese people and others. But it also carries another message directed at the Islamists themselves. The authorities are effectively telling them:

“This is what your leadership has come to. We use it to build bridges in our foreign relations, deploy it to support us domestically, then arrest and persecute it until it dies in prison. We can trample all over it as we please, without offering any justification whatsoever! What do you think? Are you going to do anything about it?”

This is the message received by the Islamists, thousands of whom are on the battlefronts. What extraordinary timing!

Both messages have now reached their intended recipients, at home and abroad, as well as the Islamists themselves.

So, what gains has the authorities’ decision achieved so far?

Unfortunately, the opposite of what they had imagined has happened.

The opposition abroad stuck out its tongue in mockery, declaring: “What happened was a staged performance, and you are lying to us!” The incident was even compared to the famous Palace and Prison theatrical farce.

Then the West, the authorities’ officially declared adversary, resorted to silence. It neither endorsed nor condemned the move. There was complete silence. They seemed to have forgotten all their statements and documents concerning freedom of expression.

They then escalated their campaign, demanding that Ahmed Haroun be handed over to the International Criminal Court, even though they know this is impossible, even if Haroun himself were to demand it. That is because such a move would unleash developments with potentially disastrous consequences… Or would it?

3

Domestically, the authorities received three messages.

First: More than six million Sudanese watched Haroun’s podcast, and audiences engaged with it, with 90% supporting the views he expressed. The podcast topped the trending charts for three days, then surged again following his arrest. It effectively became a referendum on Haroun’s standing and the importance of his testimony. For the first time, people were watching and listening to a politician on such a massive scale, and he was receiving such widespread acceptance, generating millions of views.

Second: Not a single writer of any standing, nor any political party, dared to endorse Haroun’s detention. This means the decision was isolated, receiving no support from the political arena, while a wave of public anger swept across social media platforms.

That is the people’s verdict.

If a decision—any decision—fails to win the approval of foreign parties, the public, and domestic political forces, one must ask: For whose benefit was it issued? And why? What gains does the authority expect to achieve from it?

Third: This move, or decision, sent a message to all allies fighting alongside the Armed Forces in the Battle of Dignity:

“You are fighting alongside us, but none of you is immune from our heavy-handed treatment whenever you say something we dislike. We do as we please. You fight under our command, and we do with you whatever we deem appropriate, whenever we consider the time right!”

It is as though the authorities are telling their allies: We need your sacrifices, but we cannot tolerate your voices.

What is strange is that Commander Minni Arko Minawi can speak as he pleases, whenever he pleases, and none of the competent authorities dares to ask him: “What exactly is your problem?”

One wonders why.

This is not an incitement. It is a call for justice through guaranteeing freedom of expression for everyone: “Woe to those who give short measure.”

4

This is an extraordinary authority: it invites its enemies into the embrace of the homeland while striking down those who have remained within that embrace and continue to defend it!

It gives Savanna the opportunity to speak at length in extended interviews, recounting his exploits, yet refuses to grant the same right to those defending it!

This is the theory of emptying the circle: you drive away all your strong allies and gather around yourself all the political forces that are utterly useless, making yourself feel as though you are winning, when in reality you are slowly committing political suicide.

5

The question with which we began remains: What political gain is there in arresting Haroun?

If the decision has failed to win the support of the authorities’ opponents, provoked public anger at home, and sent a disturbing message to their allies, where exactly is the gain?

The strength of a state is not measured by its ability to silence those who disagree with it, but by its ability to subject disagreements to the rule of law.

Not everything an authority is capable of doing is necessarily wise or appropriate to do.

The authorities commit unnecessary blunders because, quite simply, they make decisions out of anger, without study, purpose, or political calculation, as though the country were not already burdened with enough crises and discord.

They are plunging into a river of madness that will sweep them—and the entire nation—away.