The absence of the national project and the crisis, the political development and the revolution (12-4)- Abdul Ghaffar Mohammed Saeed

(The absence of the national project and the crisis, the political development and the revolution (12-4
Abdul Ghaffar Mohammed Saeed
- The coup of November 17, 1958, the formation of leaders (sectarian - liberal).
- Charter of the uprising of October 1964 The most clear evidence of the absence of the national project.
The Umma Party, led by Abdullah Khalil (Prime Minister), won a majority of the seats in parliament and allied with the People's Democratic Party (the Al-Khatami Party) and formed a coalition government. In June 1957, the government handed over power to the military led by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.
It is well known that Mr. Abdullah Khalil, the prime minister of the second Sudanese ministry after independence, handed power to the Sudanese army under the leadership of Ibrahim Abboud (handover and surrender).
Abdullah Khalil was one of the founding members of the Umma Party in 1945 and was elected as the party's first general secretary. In Ismail al-Azhari's coalition government, which was formed in February 1956, he was appointed minister of defense and public works. After the fall of the Ministry of Azhari in July 1956 took over for the first time. Abdullah Khaleel formed the ministry which, in addition to the Umma Party, included ministers from the People's Democratic Party (PPP), headed by Ali Abdul Rahim al-Amin, head of the party and trade minister, while in the opposition there was the National Union Party headed by Ismail al-Azhari, the party's leader.
"The days before the parliament resumed its work, Prime Minister Abdullah Khalil called me ... and told me that the political situation was going from bad to worse, and that serious and important events might arise as a result of this," said Ibrahim Abboud, a member of the investigation committee set up to investigate the November 17 incursion. Situation, and there is no way out of the army's receipt of power).
Khalil said that he did not only know, but had agreed in advance, and secretly, with Aboud to take over the government, which was caused by fear of the coalition of Egyptians and federalists to topple his government, especially after a series of meetings between Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, Azzari, the leader of the National Democratic Party, and the news of the many hopes sent by the Egyptians to Sudan.
Khalil said he had agreed with Aboud to return the rule to civilians six months later. And appoint Abboud Mr. Abdul Rahman al-Mahdi as President of the Republic, and Ismail Azhari as prime minister
However, six months later, Abboud Turk refused to rule (Khalil threatened to reveal the secret agreement with him).
"How does a man in Omar Abdullah Khalil, his experiences and his prime minister agree to an unwritten agreement on his fate, the fate of his government and the fate of his homeland?" Said the US ambassador to Khartoum.
Finally, the deputy head of the Umma Party, Maj. Gen. Fadlallah Barmat Nasser, confirmed to Al-Muhajir newspaper in 2013 that the coup of November 17, 1958 was not a real coup in its conventional meaning. It was a "handover and surrender" Khalil".
The picture is complete by mentioning the fact that on the morning of November 17, 1958, the day scheduled for the parliament, Ibrahim Abboud, his first statement, announced the army's receipt of power, suspended the constitution, annulled the parliament, abolished the activity of the political parties, and blessed by its coup religious leaders, leaders of the two largest religious denominations: Abdul Rahman al-Mahdi, the leader of Ansar, and Ali al-Mirghani, the leader of the sect Khatmiyah.
The fact that Aboud was handed over to the Authority was on the day scheduled for the opening of the parliamentary session. Once he announced his receipt of power, he received the support of the leaders who turned against them, the leaders of the two parties with the largest two parties, and the votes of their Sudanese followers in the democratic elections. Which confirms, in addition to many other practices, that there is no doubt that the Sudanese politicians who are sectarian and educated allied with them (the fathers of independence), did not appreciate the national and moral responsibility which necessitates the maintenance of the democratic system and the need to preserve democracy from personal and sectarian interests. And party. Their sectarian interests were greater in their hearts than in the homeland and democracy, so the sectarianism of the backward structure included the Sudanese learners who had formed the alumni conference, which practiced liberal democracy in Sudan. Therefore, the model of democracy that was practiced in Sudan reflected the structure Because of the lack of elections, the voices of the people, the representatives of the people, the parliament with its legislative and executive powers, the judiciary, the press and the underlying cause behind this tuberculosis. And the backward (delivery and receipt) is the political competition with the federalists, is not that (excuse the ugliest of sin) in the most beautiful form !!
Aboud's regime, as the leaders of military coups often do, promises the Sudanese people prosperity, prosperity, and peace. But it soon increased the civil war on the pretext of settling it.
The October Revolution glorious 1964:
The uprising of October 1964 took its momentum and its luster as we see it occurring at a time when Africa and the Middle East did not know the kind of peaceful uprisings that end with the surrender of the military and their acceptance of handing over power to civilian leaders. I think that most of their value as a Sudanese revolutionary act and as a human historical achievement lies in it Has emphasized two issues, the first of which is the importance of democracy as a popular practice, and the second is the ability of the tools of peaceful struggle "under specific conditions" to lead the process of democratic transformation.
The most important issues raised by the October 1964 uprising are the (theoretical) presentation of the issue of national unity represented in the case of southern Sudan, because the round table failed in practical way to solve the problem of Sudan in the south.
It is true that the slogan of the problem of Southern Sudan turned into a program manifested in the deliberations and decisions of the Round Table Conference and in the program of the Twelfth Committee which became a point of reference based It was signed by the Addis Ababa Convention, which was signed on March 3, 1972, after it was codified in the so-called Regional Autonomy Law (1972), which ended the civil war (1955-1972). However, They did not see beyond their noses. Roundtable Conference 1965 Southern politicians responded to the October government's call to sit at the negotiating table, after Prime Minister Sir al-Khatim al-Khalifa acknowledged in November 1964 that force was not a solution to the southern problem. In March 1965, the Round Table Conference, which included 18 representatives of the northern parties and 24 southern politicians, was attended by observers from Ghana, Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, Egypt and Algeria. That was the first serious Sudanese attempt to seek peace. They agreed to present three options for the conference: federalism, unconditional unity with the north and secession. The southerners expressed a desire to have the three options decided by referendum, but all the northern parties stood against that desire. To give it to the South) is a special situation that includes the establishment of a Legislative Council of the Territory and a Council of Ministers with limited powers in matters of education, health and agriculture. Of course, the southerners rejected that offer and responded by demanding federalism. After the end of the government of the Seal of the Seal of the transitional caliphate formed coalition governments sometimes headed by Mohammed Ahmed Mahjoub and another time headed by Sadiq al-Mahdi, did not see those governments (democracy) in the southern Sudanese problem more than the group saw Abboud, control of a few rebels and eliminate them and then opened the door to peace . This simplification of the reality of the issue of Southern Sudan confirms that the mentality of the Sudanese politicians in the traditional sectarian parties, which is called "liberal democracy", does not differ from the mentality of the military in the Abboud regime. It is ironic paradox of the Sudanese politicians that a democratic government, And the great intellectual and poet Mohammed Ahmed Mahjoub, pursuing the same policy adopted by Abboud military rule towards southern Sudan, was the result of the escalation of military operations and abuses and committed massacres by these elected governments beyond what was committed by the regime of Abboud Diabetes of violence. The various coalition governments between the two major federal parties and the nation have not taken any interest in solving the South issue and stopping the war, but they have been mainly interested in the conflict over the two-party governing bodies. This conflict prompted the parties to use the Muslim Brotherhood, the force that was competing against the religious ground at the time, which was demanding Islamic law and the Islamic Constitution, where they worked on each other to bullying against the other, and thus held a market for bidding on the Islamic Constitution moved to the corridors of parliament and there broke out a debate Among the advocates of the Islamic Constitution on the one hand, and the southern MPs and leftists calling for secularism on the other. The preaching of the Islamic constitution was one of the tools of conflict in which the sectarian parties tried to eliminate the leftist opposition and limit the southern rejection (exploitation of religion for the purposes of the world). These traditional forces have soured Sudan's first problem of war in the south and have dealt a decisive blow to the recommendations of the round table, and have attacked the Constitution. The collapse of the Communist Party and the expulsion of its deputies and the rupture of the Constitution: The sectarian parties and the Muslim Brotherhood narrowed the growing influence of the Communist Party after the October uprising, where 11 deputies won in the elections of graduates from 16 departments carried out by the Muslim Brotherhood and sectarian parties on November 19, 1965 plot demanded the Higher Teachers Institute Shawqi In an interview with Al-Muhajir newspaper on May 31, 2018, Shawqi said in an interview with the Al-Muhajir newspaper that when the Teachers Institute event occurred in 1965, he had nothing to do with the Sudanese Communist Party but was a member of the party Communist Leadership Bull Of which calls for armed struggle. Then, Mohamed Ahmed Mahgoub, the leader of the association and the Prime Minister, asked the President of the Assembly to lift Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure to discuss an urgent matter. A decision was taken at the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1965, to dissolve the Communist Party. And amend the constitution to expel his deputies from parliament. Almost a year later, at the end of 1966, Supreme Court Justice Salah Hassan declared that freedoms in Article V of the Constitution could not be amended. All that happened did not happen. But the leaders of the three parties, the Umma, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Muslim Brotherhood, opposed the Supreme Court's decision. Sadiq al-Mahdi, prime minister and head of the Umma Party, said the Supreme Court's ruling was a report. The result was the resignation of the Chief Justice, Babaker Awadallah. "I have worked to maintain the independence of the judiciary since I had the honor to include that principle in the October Charter," he wrote in a letter of resignation to President Azhari. "I do not want to keep the head of the judiciary to witness the liquidation, ). It is worth mentioning here that the leaders of the parties who refused to dissolve the Communist Party and amend the Constitution and supported the decision of the Supreme Court, Professor Martyr Mahmoud Mohamed Taha. The alliance of sectarian parties and the Muslim Brotherhood undermined the peaceful exchange of power and described the constitution and beat the democratic system in the killing despite the nose of the judiciary and law. This led to political tension and congestion in the south, which created conditions for the army's takeover of power on May 25, 1969, In the May coup. One of the contradictions of Mr. Mohammed Ahmed Mahgoub, the prominent politician, the great intellectual and the terrible poet of liberation, did not mention in his important book Democracy in the Balance any assessment of the disaster of the dissolution of the Communist Party, the assault on the Constitution
The Sudanese judiciary and the electorate who elected 11 members of the Communist Party of Parliament, although he was then prime minister and leader of the founding society. He personally applied to the President of the Assembly to lift Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure to discuss an urgent matter. Mr. Mohamed Ahmed Mahgoub personally asked to discuss the solution of the Communist Party !! I think that the absence of Mr. Mahjoub, the incident of the dissolution of the Sudanese Communist Party, which affected the whole history of political development in the Sudan in his famous book, which evaluated the history and development of democracy in Sudan (democracy in balance), led to two important issues: This is true in the extent of his faith and his belief in liberal democracy and the peaceful exchange of power. Who is Muhammad Ahmad al-Mahjoub, the political leader? Mahjoub ran in the 1953 elections and became opposition leader in the first session of the House of Representatives. Until then, Mahjoub had not joined any political party. (42, 52) of his memoirs: "I was elected as a candidate independent of the circle of graduates, so far I have not joined any political party ... I felt that any division among intellectuals, during the struggle for national liberation, So I decided not to join any party or group ...). In 1954 he became leader of the opposition, and Ismail Azhari was prime minister. He joined the Umma Party during a political festival in December 1956. His main reason was that I had cooperated with the party when I was secretary of the Independent Front and the Umma Party Then the only one whose policy is consistent with my political convictions). The Al-Hashimab family, to which Mahjoub belongs, has an old and strong link with the Umma Party, whose roots date back to the beginning of the Mahdist revolution. The Mahjoub ancestors worked in the Mahdia office. In his justification for joining the Umma Party, Mahjoub points out that the Umma Party is the only one whose policies are consistent with his convictions, and given the family affiliation of Mahjoub, it is clear that in the relationship between the intellectual and the authority, In front of the temptations of sectarian excellence with easy power and high standing, Mahjoub chose to be a Saloonist, who practiced the elite with the elite and then went out to the streets, to the voters who were driven by the election of the sign and the Khalifa Al Mahdi, the violation of the constitution, The people, so they did not He chooses others to choose the role of the Enlightened Enlightenment intellectual who is struggling with courage and courage to advance and elevate his splendor and his homeland. The uprising of October 1964, apart from the brilliant slogans that were put forward by the uprising and after the surrender of the military and the handover of power, in the momentum of the uprising, in the light of the freedom of the press, and with full and objective understanding of an important issue is that the sectarian and traditional parties since independence did not have real programs to install the pillars of the state and It was based on belonging to the religious community, personal admiration for the leader or the leader's rank, or for the blessings of the religious or worldly leader, while he was left. The intellectual Vyate which is based on general and political programs, which was posed as a solution to the problems of Sudan in particular. As the process of social change in its dialectical begins with an intellectual perception, it is translated by its holders into a political program, which is expressed in the mobile carrier relationship through the slogans that reflect it and call for its application. We will review here the charter of the October uprising, which the revolutionists agreed upon in their various trends, The theoretical framework, which determines the level and the theoretical ceiling (intellectual), for the political action in the maximum practical range intended for the uprising of October 1964 accomplished. The Charter of the October 1964 uprising 1. The establishment of a transitional civilian government to govern in accordance with the amended 1956 Constitution. 2. To hold elections no later than March 1965 for a constituent assembly that exercises legislative authority and establishes the constitution. 3. To liberate public freedoms and repeal the laws restricting them. 4. Securing the independence of the judiciary and the University of Khartoum. 5. Release political prisoners. 6. The adoption of a foreign policy in the period of transition against colonialism and alliances. The above Charter, which was unanimously adopted by the political forces in Sudan together and promulgated by the Seal of the Seal of the Caliphate on October 30, 1964, carries no real social and economic reform agenda that positively affects the life of the Sudanese people. The political development required to establish national reform and renaissance, not to mention the agenda of a national project that includes all elements of political development, seeks the Algerian change of socio-political and socio-political reality, changing the relations of production, the equation of power, the structure of the state and the dignity of the Sudanese people. Is, poverty and disease, it aims to lay the foundations of social justice. In fact, the October Charter clearly and substantively reflects the professional concerns of the Sudanese middle class in northern Sudan, students and professionals (doctors, engineers, lawyers, university professors and staff). Although the workers participated in the uprising of October 1964, especially the railway workers, and the farmers represented in the farmers of the island project, they also participated that the charter was not expressed in any way and necessarily did not express the shepherds. The Charter of the October Uprising dealt with segments of the modern (urban) forces, and expressed these forces in the Charter and their aspirations and legitimate desire to build a new modern society that achieves itself within its framework, but the problem of the forces that led
The Intifada is its inability to capture the decisive historical moment offered by the Intifada by harnessing the revolutionary tide of pressure on the political forces on the right for a historical consensus on a national project to solve all Sudanese political issues.
  Source: Urbanized Dialogue

* Abdel Ghaffar Mohamed Said - journalist and researcher Sudanese