النظرة الدونية للمرأة في الخطاب السياسي الشعبوي السوداني

ميكافيلية يصنعها الرجال ويتحمل وزر اوصافها النساء

قرأت مؤخراً تعليقات غضبى تصف تلوّن السياسة الخارجية للسودان بالعُهر السياسي ووصفت احدها السودان بالعاهرة المُتسكعة في الشارع السياسي تبحث عن مُشتر ثري، وهو تعليق مُحمّل ومُثقل بقيم مُجتمعية عن القوة والقدرة والضعف والخنوع والنوع الجندري. أود أدناه توضيح الفرق البائن بين العهر وما تفلعه السياسة الخارجية السودانية.

الرئيس الايراني احمدي نجاد والرئيس السوداني عمر البشير عقب لقاء ثنائي لتوثيق العلاقات في ٢٠١١م مصدر الصورة  

تبّنت السياسة الخارجية للسودان في الفترة الأخيرة تحولات راديكالية وانتقال من ضفة لأخرى - من مُناصرة مُعلنة ومُسسترة لإيران إلى عداء سافر يتتبع خطى دول الخليج أينما ولّت وجهها في سعيّها لتصعيد الصراع مع الكتلة الشيعية. وما هو معلوم للكثير أن السودان كانت محطة تمرير للأسلحة الإيرانية للمقاومة الفلسطينية في قطاع غزة، وهو الأمر الذي لطالما أثار حفيظة دول الجوار وعلى وجه الخصوص السعودية، ناهيك عن استعداء اسرائيل التي اتهمتها السودان بقصف مصنع اليرموك في أكتوبر ٢٠١٢م. [1] وردت إيران بارسال فرطاقتين إلى السواحل الشرقية للسودان خلال أقل من اسبوع للتدليل على عمق العلاقة بين البلدين واستعداد إيران للزود عن السودان،[2] وخصوصاً بعد تدخل الأولى في الحروب الداخلية للأخيرة.

تعمقت العلاقة السودانية الإيرانية عندما شاركت إيران بقدراتها العسكرية في الحرب الأهلية في السودان في مايو ٢٠١٣م،[3] وردّت الدبلوماسية السعودية في اغسطس ٢٠١٣م بمنع طائرة الرئيس السوداني من عبور الأجواء السعودية في طريقها إلى إيران لحضور حفل تنصيب الرئيس الجديد حسن روحاني.[4] وعبرت السعودية صراحة عن اسفها للتقارب السوداني الإيراني على إثر الضربة التي قامت بها اسرائيل ضد السودان عبر مقالة الرأي للصحيفة السعودية "الرياض"، والتي تُعبر عن رأي القيادة السعودية، حيث قال يوسف الكويليت في كلمته: "السودان يمر بحالة فقدان التوازن عندما فقد صداقته العربية وخاصة دول الخليج العربي التي تعرف دقائق تحالفه مع إيران عسكرياً وسياسياً." [5] إلا أن عُرى العلاقة بين السودان وإيران انفصمت لأسباب يطول ذكرها، وولت الخرطوم وجهها للخليج وخصوصاً أن الظروف الإقليمية كانت مواتية لقبول العائدين من "الغي".[6]

إلا أنّ الخرطوم لا تنأي عن بيع أي شيء في سبيل الحصول على تمويل وسيولة لتسيير شؤون الدولة المُتهالكة والمُنهكة. فالرئيس السوداني الذي وصفته مذيعة سكاي نيوز العربية [7]- المموّلة إمارتياً - بأنه ابن الحركة الإسلامية الذي جاء إلى الحكم، إلا أن ذات البشير تنصل من تاريخ انتماءه للحركة الاسلامية وبرر لدول الجوار ادراج التنظيم في قائمة الإرهاب،[8] وهي من ضمن محاولات مُهطِعة للتطبيع مع الخليج والتطهر من وُزِرَها بالتقارب مع إيران. [9] وفي ذات اللقاء، برر اقفال الحُسينات وقلل من اهمية التبادل التجاري الإيراني-السوداني والذي يُقدر بـ ١٥٠ مليون دولار للعام ٢٠١٤م فقط. والآن الخرطوم تُشارك بعتادها - وجُله من تمويل وقدرات إيرانية - في حرب بالوكالة في اليمن، وطردت السفير الإيراني على إثر التصعيد الدبلوماسي بين إيران والسعودية،[10] [11]وخصوصاً أن السعودية الآن الانت جانبها[12] للسودان لمشاركة الأخير بلواء مشاة في حرب اليمن.[13]وما تزال الساحة حُبلى بتنازلات أكثر لها تداعاياتها سنشهدها على مدار العام الحالي.

ماهي اشكالية وصف السياسة التي غالباً ما تكون صنيعة رجالية بالعُهر؟

إن الحديث عن بهلوانيات السياسة الخارجية السودانية - او الداخلية - حديثٌ ذو دهشة لا تنقطع، إلا أن الغرض من المدخل الأول اعلاه هو لطرح سؤال يتعلق بوصف سلوك السودان بـ "العُهر" وهو ما يعني ضمناً ان السودان "عاهرة" تذهب لمن يدفع أكتر. 

النمط السياسي أعلاه والعلاقة المتداخلة  love triangle بين السعودية وإيران والسودان هي أمر سياسي (رجالي) بحت. فالطريف في الأمر أن الدول الثلاث هذه تحديداً لا وجود للمرأة كصانع قرار في الشؤون المتعلقة بالسياسة الخارجية أو الأمن الوطني، والوجه النسائي الوحيد في الثلاث دول المملوكة بالكلية للرجال هي رضیة أفخم، المتحدثة باسم وزارة الخارجية الإيرانية في دولة الرئيس حسن روحاني، وهي أول إمرأة تشغل هذا المنصب في جمهورية إيران، إلا أنها ليست في موقع صنع للقرار وإن كانت ناقلة له. وعليه، لما تصف تبعات سياسات خططها ونفذها (الرجال) بوصف العهر المُقتصر ضمناً على المرأة؟ هل لأن مواعين اللغة عقرت عن إيجاد مُرادف للكلمة للرجل؟ أم لأننا مؤمنون تماماً بأن ادنى مرحلة يصلها الرجل هي وصفه بصفات النساء، وفي النساء العاهرات. الأمر بالنسبة لي متعلق بثقافة حقوق الإنسان ومدة اقتناعنا حقيقة بحقوق من يتعرضون للاستغلال الجنسي والاتجار بالبشر، وتعريفنا لماهية الاستغلال. فالمراة العاملة في مجال تجارة الجنس لا تملك بالضرورة قرارها بالانفلات منه، فهذه الصناعة يحرسها مُستثمرون يجعلون امر الفكاك من المواخير أمراً بالغ الصعوبة. أما السودان على الجانب الآخر، فمهما أهان نفسه بحسب الآراء، فلديه ما يعطيه ويمنعه، بعكس حال العاهرة التي لا تملك رفاهية المنع في أغلب الأحيان. 

مصدر الصورة

لنفكك الأمر سوية لنصل لكهن الأمر. من هي العاهرة من الأساس؟ ولتفسير المفردة من الضروري تحديد السياق المُجتمعي لها، فنحن هنا نتحدث عن المجتمع الشرق أوسطي لا غيره، حيث حديث الجنسانية او المدارس الفكرية التي تؤيد حق المرأة في جسدها لا تُسهم بشكل مُباشر أو غير مُباشر في الوعي الجمعي. إذن من هي العاهرة التي نصف بها سلوك التأرجح السياسي للخرطوم، وهو التأرجح المعلوم للسياسة بشكل عام حيث تتبع الدول مصالحها أينما كانت ومع أي كانت، ولكن نظل هنا نصفها بالعهر، وبتعمد أو بغير تعمد، نقصد المحمول السالب الانثوي إن صح التعبير. سبق لي وان قمت ببحث مع عاملات في مجال الجنس، ولم يسبق أن اخبرتني احداهن بأنها كانت تحلم في صغرها بأن تكبر وتكون عاهرة تبيع في المتعة لمن يُريد. جُلهن قادتهن ظروف مُتباينة في ظاهرها وتتفق في جورها لتجارة الجنس؛ الفقر والنزوح والإجبار ظروف تتكرر وتربط بينهم بخيط لا مرئي. عقد مُقارنة بين التأرجح في المواقف السياسية، والتي كما سبق وذكرت أساس السياسة وتحكمها الضرورات السياسية دائمة التغيير، بسلوك العاهر التي هي في الأساس بائع (مجبور) لبضاعة من الطبيعي أن يذهب لمن يدفع أكثر، أمر بالغ الغرابة، إلا أن التفسير الوحيد لذلك هو رغبة من يستخدم الوصف في اسباغ الصفة الدونية على الموصوف وبالتحديد وصفه بالأثنوية الخنوع التي تؤخذ بقوة الرجل المالك لمبلغ الشراء. بالتالي المُشتري - الرجل عادة - هو الاقوى. ومن الجلي أن صفات الفجر الرجالية لا تروي غل الثائرين على تقلبات السياسات الخارجية فالوصف بالفجور للرجل هو وصف للفعل، أما وصف احدهم بانه عاهرة فهو وصف دوني مُركب، انت امرأة يبيعها رجل ويشتريها - أدنى مكانة مُتخيلة في الوعي الجمعي الذكوري.[14] 

أميل للرأي الذي يرى الدعارة كاتجار بالبشر واستغلال جنسي، ولا أرى العاهرة او المُتاجرة بالجنس سوى ضحية من نوع ما، وظروف عملها غير عادلة، وتقتطع من انسانيتها ما لا تُغطية كُلفة الليلة الواحدة مهما ارتفعت التكلفة. إن انحينا التعاطف مع عاملات الجنس جانباً، لم يُستثنى الرجل المتمتع بخدمات عاملات الجنس من الوصف وساء اللغة عليه بمفردة جديرة بالتداول؟ لما تحمل "العاهرة" وزر اختيارها واختيار طالب المُتعة؟ الاجابة ببساطة هي أن المقصود من الوصف هو التقليل المُرتبط بوضع المراة في الوعي الجمعي، وهو أمر لا يتقصر على ثقافتنا بالطبع بل سلوك مُتّبع في ثقافات العالم أجمع ترتبط جميعها بالمرجعية الفكرية التي ترى المرأة العنصر الأضعف المُهان ويسهل شراءه. 

ليست هذه المرة الأولى التي توصف فيها سياسات الخرطوم بالعهر، أو تُستخدم فيها صفات مُقللة للمرأة في سياق سياسي. فحسن اسماعيل، الكادر الخطابي المفوّه لحزب الأمة الذي انتقل حديثاً لكتلة الحزب الحاكم أجج مشاعر المُحتشدين في محفل معارض منتقداً فساد وزير المالية بقوله" ياهو يقعد واحنا نقعد في بيتونا نلبس طرح"[15] أو الخيار الآخر الرجالي الضمني الذي لم يقله فانطلقت الهتافات جُؤارُ رجالية بـ "حرية" "حرية"! دون أن يطرف لأحد منهم جفن. والهتاف المؤيد يستجمع كل التقليد الشعبي الذي يرى قمة الذل والهوان للرجل أن يكون امرأة - وان لبست طرحة - فناهيك إن كانت عاهرة! ولتكتمل الصورة، لابد أن ننظر لفكرة تناول المراة للسياسة التي تُرى بانها حكر على الرجل. وتتنازل المرأة العاملة في مجال السياسة عن حقها في التنافس على مواقع تنفيذية كمقعد رئاسة الجمهورية خشية استفزاز المُجتمع "التقليدي"،[16] وهو أمرٌ يُقرأ مع فتوى علماء السودان التي حرّمت ترشح المراة للرئاسة [17]- وانكرت صلتها بالبيان فيما بعد. وذات المرأة المُستخدمة كرمزية للتحقير هي ذاتها المرأة المُستخدمة لتحفيز الرجولة في الرجل والتفاخر بتقدير المهيرات والكنداكات، وهو احتفاء في نظري غير راسخ او مُستقر في الثقافة الشعبية بل احتفاء عابر ومرحلي كمدخل لرفع همم "الرجل"، بينما النظرة الدونية للمرأة وكل ما هو مُرتبط بها من تُقي (لبس الطرحة) أو فجور (العهر) مُتعمقة ومُتجذرة.

الثقافة الراسخة هذه ليست وليدة اللحظة وتتبعها ليس بالأمر السهل، فهي تراكمات التعاملات اليومية، وما تحوية من محمول ثقافي متوارث منطوق أو ملموس، يكرس لتفوق الرجل على المراة وبالتالي اعتبار وصف خصم بما بتتصف به المرأة انتقاصاً يليق بحجم الخطأ (الكبير عادة). هي ثقافة ممزوجة في الأغاني، والطقوس، وتوزيع السُلطة في اي حيز حتى لو كان مكان عام. أذكر أن صديقاً نشر على صفحته الشخصية على الفيسبوك عن تصرف سائق لحافلة في الخرطوم كال فيها السباب لفتاة على تمشي في الشارع المُقابل للحافلة لأن طرحتها سقطت عن رأسها - بعمد أو بدون قصد، ووصفها بأقذع صفة تُلطلق على امرأة في مُجتمع مُحافظ. والمؤلم أكثر أن الفتاة رفعت طرحتها ولم يُبد أي شاهد على الموقف تذمره من الفعل، فالسائق هنا وكّل نفسه بأن يكون وصياً على قيمة العفة المُجتمعية، وهي سُلطة لا يملكها إلا الرجل على المرأة، فلن تسمع عن أمرأة قوّمت سلوكاً لرجل على الملاء ونجت بفلعها من المُخطئ أو الحضور.

وعليه، فهذه المنظومة السياسية المرهونة للثقافة المتوارثة عن النوع، تطل برأسها من حين إلى آخر في خطاب الرجل المُثقف، فوعيّه القريب والعميق نتاج لكل ما يراه ويُشاهده ويسمعه في مُحيطه القريب.

وختاماً، سلوك السودان مع دول الجوار مُتفق مع الأعراف الدولية في السياسة الخارجية، وهي ذاتية وميكافيلية ولا تخضع للحسابات الأخلاقية الطوباوية، ومن ظنها كذلك يحتاج أن يتلمس ثقافته السياسية. إن المأخذ الحقيقي على السودان في تلوّنه السياسي والتحالفي هو تبعات هذه التلوّنات على المدى البعيد والقريب كذلك، وهي حكمة تفتقرها حكومة الخرطوم فهي تسيّر أمورها بمنطق "رزق اليوم باليوم".

-------------------------------------------------

الهوامش

[1] "الخرطوم: 4 طائرات إسرائيلية قصفت مجمعاً عسكرياً" العربية نت، ٢٤ أكتوبر ٢٠١٢م http://goo.gl/7zQJgC
[2] "الخرطوم تعلن وصول فرقاطتين إيرانيتين.. وتجدد النيران في مصنع اليرموك الحربي،" الرياض، ٣١ اكتوبر ٢٠١٥م http://goo.gl/2227Oc
[3] "إيران تدخل رسميا فى حرب الخرطوم ضد متمرديها،" الوطن العربي، ١١ مايو ٢٠١٣م http://goo.gl/Bm6ufe
[4] "السعودية تمنع مرور طائرة البشير وإيران تأسف،" الجزيرة، ٤ اغسطس ٢٠١٣م http://goo.gl/n15lU9
[5] "كلمة الرياض : سقوط الأقنعة بين السودان.. وإيران.." الرياض، ١ نوفمبر ٢٠١٢م http://goo.gl/OfZVQH
[6] "3أسباب دفعت السودان لتفضيل السعودية على إيران،" الخبر، ٢ مايو ٢٠١٥م http://goo.gl/jpx2pn
[7] فيديو| بصراحة.. مع الرئيس السوداني عمر البشير، قناة سكاي نيوز عربية، ٢ ديسمبر ٢٠١٥م https://goo.gl/3yN5xC
[8] "الرئيس السوداني عمر البشير لـ «الاتحاد»: علاقاتنا مع الإمارات متينة ومتواصلة منذ عهد زايد،" الاتحاد، ٢٣ فبراير ٢٠١٥م http://goo.gl/O8RA1H
[9] للمزيد عن تاريخ النظام الحاكم مع التنظيم الدولي للإخوان المُسلمين "البشير نحو صفقة جديدة: ترك الإسلاميين مقابل دعم اقتصادي،" العربي الجديد، ٢٨ فبراير ٢٠١٥م http://goo.gl/9Whgwq
[10] السودان ينضم للبحرين ويقطع علاقاته الديبلوماسية مع إيران،" Deutsche Welle، ٤ يناير ٢٠١٦ http://goo.gl/yas6Jm
[11] "السودان يؤكد قطع العلاقات الدبلوماسية مع إيران تضامنا مع السعودية ضد "المخططات الإيرانية"، سي. إن. إن، ٤ يناير ٢٠١٥م http://goo.gl/gt7TZ9
[12] "الاتفاقيات السعودية السودانية.. هل تنعش اقتصاد السودان؟"، الجزيرة، ٦ نوفمبر ٢٠١٥م http://goo.gl/kLhjmB
[13] “قوات سودانية تنتشر في (عدن) اليمنية مدعومة بالأسلحة والمدرعات لتعزيز قوات التحالف،” سودان تريبيون، ١٧ اكتوبر ٢٠١٥م http://goo.gl/s7lNxT
[14] فيلم وثقائقي "في الليل يرقصن" يُسلط الضوء على تجارة الجنس في مصرhttps://goo.gl/ZUXHlV
[15] فيديو يوتيوب لحديث حسن اسماعيل| https://goo.gl/gJstMt
[16] “المرأة تتخوف من الترشح لرئاسة السودان” الشروق ٢٩ اغسطس ٢٠١٤م http://goo.gl/pC4Pr0
[17] "بعد ترشح سيدتين: هيئة علماء السودان: لا يجوز تولي المرأة لرئاسة الجمهورية،" مُحيط، ١٥ يناير ٢٠١٥م http://goo.gl/V2u7Px

** الشكر العميق لمحمد عثمان لاقتراحه عنوانا مُلائما واقصر للموضوع. 

The general in his labyrinth or should I say denial?

I have written this article in response to the interview of the Sudanese President with Kevin Sieff of the Washington Post published on December 23, 2014. My response was published in Sudan Tribune, on January 5, 2015.

First of all, I should congratulate Kevin Sieff not only for  having the opportunity to meet with our bloodthirsty President , but also for escaping the fate hovering over most journalists in Sudan i.e. detention and intimidation.  I hope he makes it safe after all; you cannot trust the Sudanese government, that I know for certain.

The online edition of the interview welcomes the reader with a photo of the Sudanese President, Omer Al-Bashir, smiling sheepishly with wandering eyes that are not directed at the camera.  I went back to photo after reading the interview and I reckon that his evasive look suits the fallacy he had told in the interview.

What is intriguing about this interview is that the President bluntly told sated lies and artlessly twisted facts.  He was deeply indulged in self-victimization and blamed all his victims for their own misery.  It was the Southerners Sudanese who did not fulfil their end of the CPA agreement, the Darfurian refugees who like the easy life in camps and do not want return to their intact homes, Rapid Support Forces existence is a military necessity and a product of asymmetric conflict with fluid rebels, and finally Sep 2013 demonstrators were terrorists and the government was forced to react.

I must admit that I admired how much the President tried not to use his usual jingoistic slur he generously offers in Sudanese media.   But I wished if he had shared his genius conclusion he recently claimed that Sudan Call is orchestrated by the CIA and Mossad, who are instigating Sudanese political oppositions' dissention from the government-sponsored national dialogue.  The President assured the interviewer of the oppositions' soon return to the government national dialogue, although his security forces detained two significant signatories of Sudan Call, Chairman of the opposition National Consensus Forces Faruq Abu Issa Abu Issa and Amin Makki Madani .

So, let's take a look at the black comedy play our president staged on Washington Post pages:

Nonsense # 1: UNAMID Is Not Needed, Darfur is Safe Now

Cartoon by Sudanese cartoonist Nayer 

My nonsense tally is not in order of the questions the President had answered but rather based on relevance to current affairs.  Therefore, I will start with the  answers he gave in the third question about demanding the depart of United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID). Sudan has taken a habit in disrespecting the international community every time it feels cornered. It was first UNAMID Human Rights Office in Khartoum, and then  expelled two senior U.N. officials on Dec 24, one day after the Washington Post interview was published.  

As for the claims that UNAMID is incapable of providing protection, Mr. President seems to act as if he is not an integral part of the conflict that necessitated the presence of UNAMID, and limiting its ability at the same time.  Albeit our criticism of UNAMID performance, we cannot turn a blind eye to the governance lack of respect of the UNAMID’s mandate or its rule.  The government decision to evict UNAMID is part of its ongoing attitude towards conflicts. Prolonging them.

Mr. President yet gave a false statement about the peace process in the region and claimed that the peaceful areas in Darfur are expanding.  The President, who expressed his concerns about the Internally Displaced People IDPs, did not know that they are not only hundreds of thousands.  As of December 2013, and according to the UN, there are  2.9 million IDPs in Sudan. Mr. President, please check your facts.  

And Mr. President cannot actually understand that IDPs are not migrating birds and their transition from IDP camps to their villages is not a picnic or enjoyable road trip. Those IDPs, whom the President accused of loving ‘easy life in camps’ and aid dependent, actually have no place to return to, and their villages are burnt down with no sign of any public services.   Many refugees in Chad,  had taken then step voluntarily to return, as they did in 2012, only to lose once again what they had hoped for: peace, and they went back to Chad in influx that the international community still dealing with its ramifications.  Let’s assume that today all IDPs repatriated to their homes, and for the sake of the argument we will hypothetically assume that their houses are still standing.  How easy it is for war survivals to return to normal life? what about the trauma? what about the economic well-being and rebuilding? What guaranties that catalysts for the past conflicts are now resolved? For one, the governance style has not change.

The President lightheartedly said “they went back and it was safe and they farmed their lands.” I wish life was that simple Mr. President. IDPs returnees, if we were to shake a magical wand and return them to their homes, won’t find the ability to farm or the sense of security to do so. And farming takes more than a man and fertile soil.

Nonsense #2: September 2013: We Only Killed 80 People, Not 200

As for September 2013, the President blamed the victims, as usual.  First, he dehumanized the victims and shortened them to numbers, by referring to them as “number of people who died.” “Who died”?  They were killed.  Using the past tense "died" suggests that those armless protesters died of natural causes not police intentional "shoot to kill" conduct.   He was so fixated on the correcting the number more than answering the way in which those number were counted as causalities.   When finally he decided to answer the question of their dead circumstance, he claimed that the 80 people who 'died', died of their clashes with the police.   This what the president is promoting in his self-victimization campaign: Unarmed people lost their mind and clashed with heavily armed police. They attacked the police therefore they deserves to meet their demise for trying. I am relieved he did not say they were high or stoned to justify his allegations. The interesting thing is that he pictured the demonstration as a scene in a si-fi movie. Demonstrators attack police stations and courts.  All courts mind you in Khartoum. But only 80 died? how many courts and police stations do you have in your capital Mr. President? The President went on claiming that the “people who died” killed people and destroyed property with no mention of number of victims as he was very meticulous about the number of demonstrators “who died.”

Another fascinating analogy the President made is comparing Sudan with the U.S. The funnier analogy was describing the demonstrators as terrorists, who are Qaeda ally, which is quite interesting if we reflect on the reasons that put Sudan on U.S. sanctions list in the first place.

Nonsense # 3: Sudan-South Sudan Conflict is Patrimonial

Answering a question about the impact of the American sanctions on Sudan, the president answered another question he heard in his head.  The question specifically asked about the impact of U.S. sanctions on Sudanese people and Sudan’s economy.  The answer had no mentioned of Sudan people or their economic well-being for the matter.

Al-Bashir claimed that lifting sanctions was contingent to ending war with the South, which he thinks had been delivered. Nevertheless, the president got touched by a historical fairy and said that the conflict actually, which he just claimed ending it with diligence and willing to compromise, tracks back to the mists of time for which he blamed the British Colonization. First of all Mr. President, Sudan-South Sudan conflict might had been inherited from colonization, but all consecutive governments reproduce the same tactics of exclusions. The two decades wars during your reign were international and ideological. The South war and the ramifications of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), and its ramifications in form of the South Sudan independence in 2011, fulfilled the Sudanese government's quest for “purging” the country from all aspects of diversity, in race or religion. Evidently, you, Mr. President, wanted the secession to happen.  Demanding lifting sanctions in return for what in fact serves your ideological goals, is dishonest and distortion of truth.

Nonsense # 4: We delivered peace, therefore, we should be rewarded

Answering the same question about the sanction, the president  went on in lamentation about how the U.S. had tricked them into signing many agreements to end conflicts with the promise of lifting the sanctions. I am not sure if the president has a PR person or someone sensible to advise him on how to portray himself.  All I know is that argument made him sound like a toddler mad at his teacher for denying him his perks for not cleaning his desk.  It is your desk. You made it dirty. Take reasonability.  Hello?! Mr. President, you should not demand or need an incentive to end conflicts you have started and fueled for years. Period. Get over yourself.  Conflict in Darfur had been, and still is, a pressuring  card for the Sudanese regime. It is money-generating conflict in which the governments keep reselling to different stakeholders for different prices.  So, Mr. President, please!

Nonsense # 5: When Revenge Is Actually not a Revenge at All

Do we remember the question about the sanctions' impact on Sudan’s people and the country’s economy that the president turned it into tears bond on unfulfilled promises? Here how he concluded his irrelevant answer, which I consider a masterpiece and indicative of the political and intellectual capacities, or the lack thereof, of our President:

"And, of course, we need to see very clearly the loss incurred on the United States by the economic influence of china. It is a loss. That’s why we say the sanctions hurt us. But they also hurt the United States."

Amazing! Right? How could the president think that he made the U.S. tastes it's own poison, and that Sudan and  inflicted any economic losses on America by establishing a partnership with the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt i.e. China, which owns more about $1.2 trillion of U.S. debt.

There is much more to this interview than what an op-ed could handle. But I hope the facts are checked and people get to hear the many sides to the story.

Racism in Sudan: The Elephant in the Room

Reading  "Americanah" by  Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie prompted me to write this blog. If you hadn't read it, please do so! **

________

Since my move to the U.S. in early 2012, the issue of race has always been present.  I hear it in radio/TV talk shows, stand-up comedies, movies, grad school classes, and open mike events. I read it in newspapers and books, and it is always present when Obama’s name comes up. I have walked in several marches pertinent to police cruelty against black and listened to African-American speakers sharing their thoughts and demanding change. But does that make America a better place now for blacks or colored people? of course not, and indeed there is much more to be done.  But at least the topic is not a taboo or avoided by the colored themselves.  Social change is a process not a destination.  We become what we aspire for as we proceed. So you find “race” right there front and center wherever you find a black person, even if many would like this topic to be left behind in the past.  But people still do talk about race and racism, and the discussion should never stop. Never. Otherwise, laws, and people could easily slack and go back to the world of white supremacy.

Sugarcoating: Is it racism or tribalism in Sudan? 

The first sign that this topic is a taboo in sudan is that it is not called in its real name.  It is mitigated and called  gablia قبيلية  [Arabic for tribalism]. While tribalism is indeed a toxic ingredient that jeopardizes social harmony and social justice,  it is not the same as racism or Arab supremacy in Sudan.  Why? Because tribal characteristics of Arab tribes, albeit their difference, at the end of the end of the day, they collectively, triumph over African tribes. And this is the case in Sudan.  Jaalai [ جعلي] and Sahigi  [شايقي] might scuffle about each one's avarice or  temerity stereotypes,  but they are still considered awlad Arab اولاد عرب [Arabic for Arabians], which has positive connotation  thus spontaneously place them on the top of social hierarchy compared to those less Arabs.

Illusion

By Sudanese cartoonist KhalidAlbaih [1]

I often hear people say that old Sudanese people were never racist.  Or that they if they were racist, they never explicitly acted on their racism. That people were race-blind so to speak.  I find it hard to believe that race was not an issue until the current government came to power.  Or that racism in Sudan is just another manifestation of the present global wave of tribalism.  Nor that I think the government is innocent of instigating differences along racial lines.  But I rather suggest that the regime is using what is already latent and implicit within the social setting.  Racism, prejudice, and the notion of Arab supremacy do/did exist in Sudan.  Why am I so fixated on saying that we are racist? Because you cannot tackle what you think it doesn’t exist. So, first we need to admit the existence of racism to be able to embark on a journey to find its root, and to address it eventually.

Race has always been an issue in Sudan, and it will also be as long as Sudanese people are in limbo about their Africanism.  Race was always there, but we try to sweep it under the carpet.  If you need to know how race is significant in our collective conscious, please read the history of slavery in Sudan, and it  might shed light  on this reality.  

Reading kitab al tabagt by daifallah [2] طبقات ود  ضيف الله,  one would find profuse contents to get a feel of the presence of race long before the creation of the modern state in Sudan.  In page 108 of the fifth edition, the biography of one of the scholars indicates that his mother was Sudnaia سودانية, which was explained in the footnote that the name was the prevalent references for the indigenous people of the land i.e. the blacks. Two things caught my attention: one, the maternal lineages gained significant due to its ties to negro race. I did not find another reference in the book that mentioned a mother from the Arabian background. Two: the origin of the country's name "Sudan" should had given supremacy to the black race since they are the indigenous, but this is not the case as we all know.

Avoidance

I rarely heard any candid  discussion about race or racism among Sudanese.  Those who are on the receiving end of prejudice prefer not to talk about it with the racially-charged knowing how sour the conversation could go. In more than one occasion, I was in social settings where the Arabized Northerners entertained light discussions form the position of the privileged, charged with more vanity than sympathy. They share anecdotes of so and so marrying form the “others” and how they see it as an indication of the collapse of racial barriers. I usually do not fancy telling them that this is an oversimplification of racial issues in Sudan. Intermarriage could be a result of socioeconomic reconfiguration not the ebbing of racism.     

Sometime it seems to me that people resorted to unspoken codes of race/class classifications, of who is who, and who belongs where. The privileged enjoy their privileges and those in the lower ranks of social hierarchy either accepted their position and admired the inherent  privileges the privileges enjoy, or resented the unfair racial compartmentalization, however, they still could not change it.  

Can we change it?

Changing the perception of race and prejudice works in multiple levels and dimensions. First, it requires a state that is not a patronage system. Because a patronage system needs social classification to sustain loyalty, therefore, it enacts adequate regulations to keep a tap on who belongs to what. Also, fear is necessary for people to endure a corrupt regime. What is best than making one fear the “other” whose image is systematically portrayed as an inferior and ambush to attack his master? Second, changing perception of race needs a change in power dynamics, which cannot be accomplished under totalitarian control. Third, racism should not be treated as a myth, it needs to be brought up and disarmed. There should be enough foundation of deep understanding of what racism means and its impacts on people’s live. Racism is not only calling someone A’ab عب [Arabic for slave]. Racism is thinking that some’s life is not as worthy as yours.  Whatever that entails, including the right to “be” free of prejudgment and limitation to power or opportunities based on race.

I am always delighted when the topic of racism is brought up in a cognitive context for it makes people relate.  Recently,  youth started to bring those topics up in poetry or on stage.  It is a good start to build the foundation of understanding although  the privileged indeed opt to look the other way when the word onsoriah عُنصرية [Arabic for racism] peeks its head in conversations.  

________

** It was hard for me to finish the novel in one week due its richness in topics and its complex plot.  While the topic I will highlight in this blog is race, I was moved by other aspects the writer brought up about what African women face when they come to the U.S.: sexuality, identity, African-American v.s American form Africa, belonging, fitting, interracial relationships, and redefining oneself, among other issues.  Maybe I will get to write about those issues someday!

[1] Two Sudanese people calling one another 3ab (Slave or black)  -  by KhalidAlbaih

[2] The author of the book, Mohamed Alnour bin DaifAllha  said to be born in 1727 and died in 1810. The book is considered one of the major primary references to the Fung Sultanate, (also known as the  Black Sultanate). The book was aimed to be an encyclopedia of religious scholars of that era.

Maryam Yaha is free … But it is sweet sour for Sudan

She is free, but Sudan Remains in Shackles Intellectual and ideology shackles to be exact. Maryam Yahya’s case was not about apostasy only. It hosted many other social maladies.  Social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, and online forums)  have become an alternative reality to many Sudanese living in Sudan or the diaspora.  Following the reaction on those platforms toward the case as it developed, revealed so much of those maladies. There is a deep rooted prejudice in the society towards people from the neighboring country, there is strong tendency to be judgmental and dogmatic about apostasy in Sharia, and people publicly condoned and called for hostility towards apostate or those of other believes. I am not saying that all people are that; but quite numbers are and the ratio of people of balanced tone are outnumbered by the "god-fearing" crowd in what seems to be a pharisaical antipathy carnival. The good news is that the case stirred the public to talk about those issues and such talks will not stop once the case is closed. 

While her case was in process, the public opinion in Sudan split in many fronts. Human rights defenders supported her right of conscious and rallied for her, domestically internationally.  Some government opponents took flaky positions about her citizenry rights, nevertheless, employed the case to belittle the government.  The government on the other hand flirted with the radicals through the case but I doubt that the courtship yields any support now that Maryam is free and departed the country. Political parties were nowhere to be seen; none of them,  to my knowledge, issued a statement about the case; however, they were all hyped up about the arrest of Saddig Al-Mahdi around the same time the case was at its peak. I guess human rights are not one package. You would think that they might be interested in activating the discussion about diversity, right? Sorry. They were not interested. They asked for a rain check this time. 

I am writing this post in English to take those of you who do don't speak the language or do not follow social media discussion  in a tour that might not be pleasant in some parts, but it will show you a silver lining … but we need to focus on the red flags more ..  also, it will let you know more about the status of gender, citizenship, prejudice and xenophobia in Sudan. I will share with you my personal observation of the Sudanese mainstream’s opinions on social media and online forums. There were couple of themes and I will only focus on the obvious ones:

(1)   She is at fault. Don’t even try to convince me otherwise! Wait, what?  

Some people found her guilty for changing her religion. Period.  Those who found her guilty accepted the capital punishment as well. It was hard to discuss the case with them for they took her decision as an insult to Islam. It was personal! Many would find it hard to gasp the idea of a religion that retains its followers by the might of sword, but it this notion seems to be acceptable to many Sudanese.  The silver lining (see screenshot above ): Many people found this radical position is the real insult to Islam  for it reinforces the stereotypes that associate Islam with radicalism. Below is a discussion between commentators on an news item  published on "كلنا مريم" [we all support Maryam]   the screen shot is part of a discussion in reply to one who said " We hope the law of God is absorbed and this apostate be killed for deviating from the right path of  Islam." The responses questioned the bases of the apostasy legality in Islam and throw the question that Ridda wars during the formative years of Islam was not about apostasy but mere political decision. I find this intriguing and auspicious that such discussion is aired and not dealt with as taboos and given .

(2)  Being Sudanese presuppose being a Muslim?

Many saw Maryam's Christianity as an insult to her citizenship.  This #1 on the long list of major problem to solve. Religion diversity is becoming a myth in Sudan.  Let’s move forward and ask: Why did they assume she is Muslim by default? Because Her father is a Muslim therefore she is one. No one wondered why she was brought up Christian and where was her father all this time. Disappearing men don’t get blamed in our society. He vanishes? No problem. He can always come back and claim his household whenever he wishes. He is dead? His other kids will claim their sister when they feel like it. Not only the next of kin in this case, the whole society claimed Maryam as Muslim with no regards to what she thinks of her believe. There was a sense of ownership of her soul since her citizenship is paternal. Bookmark this for invisible voice/ feminism gushing out sessions for yo’ll feminists out there.  The silver lining (see screenshot(S) to the right): some women on Facebook supported Maryam and said that they proud of her. It feels good to see fellow women express such public camaraderie in a case that could stigmatize any supporter of being not a good Muslim.  

(3) She married a Southern?! She is asking for trouble! 

  

As the public started to learn more about the case, information birthed more resentment. There is a Sudanese girl, apparently form the north, the privileged race, married a Southern Sudanese and converted to Christianity? This was unforgivable. The majority of the Sudanese are trying to shed their blackness and become more Arabized. Sudanese women are expected to marry Arabized men, and vice versa, to keep the “purity” going.  For a Northern woman to marry a Southern, she should expect a whole a lot of trouble for crossing the racial line. The interracial marriage was not in her favor and fueled the public antipathy and hostility. 

 

(4)   It is just a show! 

A good number of people commented that thousands of Christians are bombarded with bombs in the Nuba Mountain but the international community did not rush to their aid as they did for Maryam. I think it is a valid point and I am glad people started to realize the injustice projected upon the Nuba Mountain people. The ball is now in the international community’s court, whatever that means, to focus more on the mass killing based on race and religion in plagued Sudan. The killing in the peripheral areas is inseparable of the talks of diversity and citizenship rights. The government is systematically alienating the minorities – that’s including anyone who is not a Muslim or Arabized.

(5)   She does not look Sudanese! Good riddance!

The sense of ownership of Maryam’s soul lightened as the international support mounted and more photos of Maryam became public. The lurking prejudices against Ethiopians spill over into antipathy and hurtful notes. It is ironic that this coincided with a campaign against domestic servants form Ethiopia to bring down their salaries.  In more than one incident I read comments that “she doesn’t look Sudanese” insinuating that she is Ethiopian therefore they are not interested in retaining her within the subject of the honorable Sudanese.

This racist sentiment became bolder when the photo of Maryam’s landing in Italy gone viral. It is so touching to see her smile for the first time since she has become a public face. Most of the comments focused on her features not being “Sudanese” -- which perplex me since I am always mistaken for Ethiopians, and I do not know what type of godly skills they have to identify Sudanese form the others since we are very diverse in race and colors! Who is Sudanese according to the narrative? A Muslim for sure, and less African as possible! I see this as a victory for the long brainwashing and forcible pressure of the government to convince the Sudanese mass that they are made of one fabric and come in one shape and should speak one language. The diversity is seen now as a curse and stigma rather than a particularity. This trend is dangerous and it will breed more bloodshed. 

What’s next? 

I think Maryam’s case can lay the foundation for a serious work about the constitutional rights and the judiciary rule in applying those rights. The legal code pertaining to apostasy should be revisited and abolished. Citizens should be granted the freedom of belief as stated in the constitution and laws should reflect those rights. Recent reports say that the government bans building new churches, which is outrageous and unconstitutional.   Wooing the radicals at the expenses of eradicating Christians  is more problematic than what the government thinks.  With the sprout of radical groups in the region and the weak grip of the government on the law enforcement on interstate immigration of radicals, this move will blow in the face of the movement sooner that it thinks. Containing this demon once unleashed is knotty.  

Scholars need to rise to the occasion and discuss those matters before it is too late. It is scary to see men, old and young, throw their fests in the air defending a death verdict that has no grounds in Sharia and did not bother to educate themselves. No one asked about the legal justification of apostasy in Sharia. No one wondered or bothered to look further before supporting the verdict. Apostasy has no grounds in Sharia -  not that I support Sharia application anyways but people should at least know more about what they apply first before killing other people for baseless crimes! 

On the front of humanity, we are in trouble. The case brought to the forefront the deep issues we have in our society and the prevailing understanding of religion and freedom of belief. Although many people supported Maryam's right of belief, the radical voices are more detrimental.  It showed the ugly face of prejudice and racism. It is okay to kill people who are different. It is okay to humiliate and imprison a pregnant woman and a mother for changing her belief – she actually did not change her believe. She. Was. Brought. Up. Christian! Yet, it is okay to put her on a death row!  I did not think that anyone would be okay with a woman giving birth while in shackles. It is hard to fathom that any women, a mother, would accept to see another mother on death row for no crime but choosing a different path to reach God. If you really believe in a merciful God, do you really think He needs to terrify people by death to follow Him? Common. Have some respect for your Lord!

Azaz Elshami - July 25, 2014