Dear Haydar,I am just loving our exchange, and would like for it
to get us somewhere. The first level I would like to
discuss is the emotional and personal level, and from
that level, I would turn to the rational and
intellectual level. Don't you hate this word
intellectual! I thought we should use more of an
accurate term in order to describe Sudanese who
attained degrees/diplomas from institutions of higher
education.
I suggest the use of the term educated class, or the
political class, or something. This is because the
term intellectual is a big and serious one. And
nothing justifies dolling it out to each and every one
who got an under graduate or graduate degree from an
institution of higher learning. Just a thought that
occurred to me this instance. And the reason is that
we should always bring things closer to earth.
In this earth, there was a Marxist theoretician
called A. Gramsci. I am sure you either read him, or
at least herd about him. He described who the Organic
intellectuals are. He " tires to understand and change
society at the same time. They conduct their
intellectual inquires through the practical activities
of social contestation; they measure their own efforts
more by their effect on changing society than by their
correspondence to preestablished standards of
eloquence and originality"
I meant to present this quotation and use it as an
operational definition for this particular exchange
between us. I could see many of our intellectuals,
myself included, are falling way short of this Organic
definition of who is and who isn't a true
intellectual.
Later I will use the same definition and attempt to
apply it on a larger scale as regards Sudanese
political movements.
But let me go back to the emotional level. When I
sincerely apologized to you I had 2 things in mind:
1. You said you WERE DEEPLY OFFENDED by ignoring
ustaz Mahmoud's name in my discussion. If I said or
did something offensive to someone, I would
immediately make an apology for that person let alone
offending a dear friend like yourself.
2. My personal knowledge of your love, devotion, and
even veneration of Al-Ustaz. And this is you, and I
would take and appreciate you for who you are.
So, it wasn't so much feelings of guilt on my part
that motivated me to write my e-mails of apology.
While I admire and respect Al-Ustaz and Abdulkhalig, I
do consider them as public figures who have and will
always generate lots and lots of debate. They may be
loved or hated. And they may also be intentionally or
unintentionally marginalized,ignored, belittled, or
excluded from public discourse/debate.
As a result, I didn't feel particularly guilty by not
mentioning Al-Ustaz name in the little piece I had
written to Khatim. However,I have taken your point
very well that Ustaz Mahmoud should have been
mentioned in a macro analysis of the the Sudanese
elites-if you think this term is better. This a very
technical point, or a methodological error, which
wouldn't trigger feelings of guilt on my part.
So, the deep hearted apology was for Haydar the
person.
As for me, I would not at all feel personally offended
if someone used coarsely abusive language against say
Abdul Khalig, Al-Ustaz, Nelson Mandela, or Gandhi. I
would certainly feel sad, sorry, and a little angry by
insults hurled at them. But not personally offended.
This would be, to say the least, an over
identification with these prominent figures.
After all, these leaders, great as they may be, must
never be elevated above being mortal human beings:
human beings who possessed an extraordinary sense of
duty and commitment to their respective peoples. And
they have sacrificed their lives attempting to improve
the lots of their people. These leaders are true
conviction incarnate.
However,along their treacherous and noble journeys
these leaders have made mistakes and committed errors
of judgment. As such,we are entitled to correct their
mistakes and avoid their errors. Hence, we should use
them to inspire and guide our thought and practice,
in order to solve our EARTHLY and man made
problems-here I literally mean men as in males. In
this very specific context, we must never worship
these people and certainly not hold them as objects of
veneration.
And it is because of this awe and veneration that many
republicans accord to Al-Ustaz, I had and still have
many disagreements with the republican movement. I
guess I am now coming to the second level of my
discussion.
Straightforwardly said, the God like status accorded
by members of movements to their great leaders has
always been a turn off to me and others I have known.
Let us remember first and foremost that these inspired
and inspiring leaders are MORTAL human beings.
Since 1985 and to this day, I am still bewildered by
pronouncements that had been made by eloquent
Republican public speakers that no power in this earth
could carry out the execution against Al-Ustaz. And
that somehow or other Al-Ustaz would be able to escape
that fateful execution.
These pronouncement were being made at the time when
all the other political forces and trade unions were
trying to use earthly ways and means in order to stop
that insane murder.
My reference to this particular incident MUST NEVER be
understood as gloat in any way shape or form. Rather,
I refer to that incident because it had served as the
magnifying glass, which helped us see clearly the 2
inherent problems in the structure and operation of
the republican movement. Problems, I shall argue
later , that have been ticking like a time bomb in the
very core of the movement.
I make this argument while being fully cognizant that
Ustaz Mahmoud and the republican have made
significant contributions to the overall intellectual
and political development in Sudan. May be it doesn't
even need my endorsement in this particular context.
In my humble view these 2 intertwined problems are:
1. Political ambivalence
2. Duality of purpose
I will now elaborate on each problem as objectively as
humanly possible.
Problem 1: Political Ambivalence
Here, I will discuss the Republican movement's
political ambivalence. I think the movement has not
seen itself as part and parcel of the hurly-burly
realm of political activism.
Republicans have always seen themselves operating
above earthly competition amongst different political
groups. They have always broadcast a message that
contained a political as well as religious meaning. A
double message if you will. They seemed, or may be
wanted to seem, vacillating.
This practice was primarily manifested by their
constant use of metaphysical dimensions/references
when discussing worldly problems. Hence, Republicans
deny the simple fact that, as humans, they have
personal ambitions and even egos. And as a political
movement they may set their goals to arrive at the
doors of political power. Needless to say both
endeavors are very legitimate human goals.
This vacillation had continued to be the case despite
the fact that human history and experience have made
it abundantly clear that individuals, groups,
religious and political movements jostle for social
and political space within a particular society. In
other words, the AGENCY in our earth has and will
continue to be human.
Another manifestation of this political ambivalence is
the movement's alliance with Nimierie's notorious
military dictatorship. I think it would be more
accurate to characterize the movement's relationship
with Nimerie's regime as resorting to a policy of
appeasement on its part. The republicans were not
card carrying members of Sudanese Socialist Union.
It is in this context, I think the movement has made
its gravest mistake. As late as 1983, Nimerie's
regime was hailed by the movement as the best thing
that happened to Sudan since its Independence. As a
result of this policy, intelligent and resourceful men
and women hit the streets of Sudan's urban centers
doing what the Sudanese Socialist Union had failed to
do with its vast resources. That is to say,
highlight, and publicize the regime's successes and
accomplishments.
This defense and appeasement of the regime was going
on despite the bloody murders Nimeire had committed
against all his political opponents. Incidentally,
these opponents represented the entire Sudanese
political spectrum.
And it had continued despite the fact that thousands
of opposition members had been languishing in jails
for years on end. Their defense went on despite
Nimeire's erratic behavior and whimsical attitudes.
It also continued after 1977 when Nimiere made his
unholy alliance with Turabi who they consider as the
father of fanaticism. Later, Al-Turabi played an
instrumental role in planning the public execution of
Ustaz Mahmoud.
Yet, the movement never foresaw the possibility, not
even the probability-which may be hard to calculate,
of being a potential victim of the tyrant Nimeire, or
his fanatic allies. This was not hard to foresee
because Niemire was known for his skills in making
alliances with different political factions, use them,
and finally turns against them.
Althought many analysts argue that the movement was
guilty of political expediency, I would argue
otherwise. I do think their firm belief that they
could depend on and use a higher power in their
earthly struggle have contributed to this obvious
political oblivion. They often perceived themselves to
be the saviors or deliverers of Sudan in terms other
than human ones.
Indeed the movement thought very marginally of their
activities in earthly terms. Terms such as
formulating a political vision, making political
alliances, and the like. Rather, the movement
continued to wobble between this world and the one
beyond it.
To this day, I remember the movement's effective
speakers at Cairo university dismissing our Jan. 1982
Intifada- in fact their words are still bouncing
between my ears. They described our demonstrations
and protests against Nimeire's government's hike of
most consumer goods as fruitless and waste of energy
and lives.
In the year, all political forces in the main stream
opposition have concluded that launching an effective
opposition that would lead to the removal of Nimiere's
military dictatorship should happen piecemeal. The
need to formulate a broad alliance in order to topple
Nimiere has begun to emerge, and was easily seen by
most of the political forces. But republicans didn't
acknowledge that need. Rather, they insisted on going
it alone refusing to ally with anyone.
I end this section by concluding that the movement's
political ambivalence had proved to be fatal and had
led to a disastrous outcome . Or shall I say that was
the ultimate complacency a Sudanese political movement
had engaged itself in.
Duality of purpose:
Is the republican movement a religious or political
movement? The movement had attempted to be both, and
in the process it became neither.
This duality of purpose was built in the structure of
the movement, since Ustaz Mahmoud was the ultimate
political and religious authority in it. As a result,
it was not in a position to become an all inclusive
political movement let alone a popular one that could
attract masses to join its ranks.
For example, the religious component in the movement
would naturally shut off people of secular persuasions
such liberals, freethinkers, secular humanists, and
the like. It naturally excluded people who are not
Muslims. I am not sure if you can become a Republican
and not be a Muslim.
Ironically, the movement fantastic ability to
challenge traditional and outdated interpretations of
Islam has very much alienated ordinary Muslims folks.
They came to see Ustaz Mahmoud's inner journey and his
most private revelations as offensive to their
religious sentiments.
Indeed, Ustaz Mahmoud's had been conducting soul
search throughout his life. In the process, many of
of his very private thoughts and practices became a
public knowledge. In my judgment, that was not at all
necessary as it heightened ordinary Muslims alienation
. For example, the fact that Ustaz Mahmoud had been
practicing a private type of prayers made some
ordinary Muslims very hostile towards the movement.
So, we can see the movement's attempt to straddle two
horses had contributed to alienating people of
political persuasions as well as ordinary Muslim
folks.
As a result, only few and dedicated bunch could be
Republican and continue to be republican. In time,
the movement became an esoteric organization. As Abu
Bakr Algadi argued it became a closed sect that
demanded total obedience on the part of its members.
ABC politics indicate to us that total obedience
within an organization smacks only of absolutism.
Haydar,
I would now end this long e-mail. The longest single
e-mail I have ever written in my life. In my next
message, I will go over some of your points in which
you have made a comparison between Al Ustaz and Abdul
Alkhalig.
Sure enough, I will limit my comments to the political
aspects of your arguments, so that my upcoming
exchange be consistent with this one.
The general idea in my mind now is who of the two
giants succeeded in building an organic political
movement?
Respectfully yours,
Hassan
(عدل بواسطة Haydar Badawi Sadig on 02-26-2005, 10:12 PM)
Haydar Badawi Sadig
فيس بوك
تويتر
انستقرام
يوتيوب
بنتيريست