Dear Sultan,It has been qutie sometime since we had an exchange. This thread of yours is wonderful. I wish I had more time to comment
on it. I will be back, though. In the meantime please read the comments below that I made in another forum.
Please bear in mind that I made them before Yasir Arman seemed to have retracted the comments he made.
Greetings to all the contributors in this healthy, civilized, and useful dialogue. I am really impressed with the thoughtfulness I sense in it.
************************************
I agree with you, as most of us in this forum probably do, that the SPLM's latest pronouncements -on prohibiting participation of other forces in the democratic process during the transitional period- are bizare, to say the least. The overall stance is unconstitional, however one looks at it. The way out to see this as consistent with present messy circumstances is to say that SPLM is still predominantly military in nature. And that it promised to help in transforming governance and political processes toward democratic rule, but it didn't promise to be democratic at the outset of its ascent to power. This may be understandable if SPLM doesn't claim that it is democratic today and that it has been democratic since its inception.
I see the peace agreement as one between two armies, not civilian forces. These two armies are joining hands, practically to effect a truce to stop the bloodshed, rather than bringing about a permanent settlement for the conflict. Thus, we should expect some degree of dictatorial rule, with a lower dose -than has been the case since 1989. If we approach our challenges from this perspective, I think, we will lower our expectations, and be realistic in the conceptions and actions we must take to ensure that we will not let two militaries dictate our ultimate fate. The SPLM may be thinking that the transitional period requires a firm grip of power to secure the country from possible collapse. It may also be thinking that engaging the extremist fanatics thorough a marriage of convenience might result in softening fanaticism. To do so, SPLM might be thinking, it needs to ensure the trust of its partners, and hence require some compromises on the part of the former. This line of pragmatic thinking, with all its limitaions, and with all the reservations that many of us have, may produce positive results, as history tells us. We need only to remember how Abraham Lincoln, a democratically elected civilian, suspended significant parts of the U.S. constitution during the Civil War to ensure peace and security during most of his rule. But if not handled with wisdom and willingness to take bold measures, our delicate balances will tip one way or the other, which may lead to chaos. Strategists in SPLM, including John Garragg and Mansour Khalid -as two wise men indeed- may be seeing this as the only way out.
I have not yet made sensible conclusions on this matter, as obviously clear from the above estimate of the current situation. But I find myself under no elusion that the transitional period will bring democracy from the outset in any sustainable form. However, it may provide a cushioning for a sustainable democracy to begin to take effect. Bringing about formidable change in this direction is left to us, all of us, in the civil society, including forces within both SPLM, and possible recanting fanatics who are getting tired of their own extremism. Under military rule we can't expect any thing more than some form of dictatorship, albeit a milder one, where huge mistakes, but correctable ones, might be made. I hope that most of us will continue to see that we are, and will be for a while, under military rule that may be dissolved into a civilized form of government in time.
(عدل بواسطة Haydar Badawi Sadig on 05-10-2005, 07:38 PM)
(عدل بواسطة Haydar Badawi Sadig on 05-10-2005, 07:46 PM)
Haydar Badawi Sadig
فيس بوك
تويتر
انستقرام
يوتيوب
بنتيريست