Sudan, like some other African countries, has had a long history of dictatorships and military coups. Some of them progressive, and others not.
It is Sudan, and, if I am correct, the government of President al-Bashir. That has been applying a brutal version of Sharia Law on its people, including the amputation of people's limbs.
But the country has known 'benevolent coups', such as that of the former President Jaafar Nimeiry.
Who started out progressively, if one can describe a military coup as such. Before he inflicted sharia Law on the people and became an ally of the United States of America.
The now deceased Gaafar Nimeiry assumed power a full 50 years ago, by removing the then leader of Sudan, Ismail al-Azahari. Like Omar al-Bashir,
Gaafar Nimeiry has done probably mo
re than his fair share of butchering Sudanese people who became his potential, actual or perceived opponents.
But, unlike al-Bashir, the once progressive Gaafar Nimeiry, did not have to account for the blood of those whose lives he had taken and/or livelihoods he had destroyed.
After all, it is only the people who are defeated who have to pay for their crimes.
So, once again, which Sudanese do the populist demonstrators represent?
Whose interests do they represent, when their actions, if it results in the destruction of Sudan's civil society and infrastructures, can only result in greater instability for all of its people?
To be continued!
No comments:
Post a Comment