2 views
HOW SOUTH SUDAN BECOME A FRAGILE STATE
When going back to the story of Sudan and Egypt, understand how the two countries were impoverished into political violence before Sudan become independent, you will note that tribal themes have invariably given no distinction with the religious cases, Mahdis war came by surprises, and it is almost the same mainspring, a long side leader Mohamed Ahmed, and Abdallah who had proclaimed himself the Mahdi of Islam, the Guided one used 17600 forces of kedivate of Egypt a alongside 8200 forces of British escalated the war between the two countries from 1881–1899. Meanwhile, the southerners were in the process of manipulation by the British and Egyptian governments, they got no room to liberate themselves otherwise; they could have had and faced three distinctive minacious enemies, then followed by many other wars until the independence of Sudan.
In the process of pogrom battles and civil wars, good leaders became dictators turning their own citizens into other British and Anglo-Egyptians, leadership became absurd, it is no longer considered as an opportunity to serve and encompasses less ability of an individual to guide individual behavior in the right orchestration. Many agreements failed Sudan, overlooking and omitting that the purpose of leadership is to program and formulate what should be done, and to ensure that it is good for the public at the macro-scale level. In such an environment, all feel unsolicited, excruciating, and tormented in their own country, regardless of their nationality and political affiliation as Sudanese.
Leaders act contrary to their constitutional mandate and obligation, whether in November 1958, 2 years and 320 days of sovereignty council, powering president Ibrahim Abboud that ended on 16th November 1964 when Sirr Al-Khatim Al-Khalifa succeeded him through a transitional process, although the second committee of the sovereignty council empowered general khalifa on 10th June 1965 to 8th July 1965, a ruling that lasted for 189 days after the 3 years and 321 days of Ismail Al Azhari from the democratic unionists’ party took over before Jaafar Nimeiry’s 15 years and 316 days came on 25th May 1969 to 6th April 1985. the fact that Nimeiry was a socialist, he tried correcting the old and contemporary jumble and end up being overthrown by Abdel Rahman Suwar Al-dahab on 6th April 1985, stayed lingering for 208 days on power and resigned, then handed over to prime minster Sadiq Al Mahdi from National Umma Party on 10th October 1986.
Out of all these changes, a few attempts to change politics for the benefit of Sudanese societies may have had some positive effects on Muslim societies but instead resulted in an Islamization program for the region’s non-Muslim residents who also happened to be Southerners. When Mahdi arrived, he formed a coalition with his nephew Muhammad Ahmad Mahgoub so that Mahgoub become the sixth prime minister of Sudan. It was successful despite the emergence of several uprisings, which led to a failed state until the country broke up.
Even if you study Sudan’s history up until the time when the national congress party led by Omar Hassain Albashir planned a successful coup captured the nation as president of Sudan on June 30, 1989. You will discover that prior to south Sudan’s independence, dictators rose and fell, demanding a myriad of reforms, but conditions continue to deteriorate in the eyes of the Sudanese. Leadership became a weapon for killing the weak and safeguarding the powerful when tyrants dominated the political landscape.
The state’s capacity to influence never changes, but only influences in the improper way; they manage Southerners by building bank kathares, which are used to entice southern officials to forsake their self-realization objective because those in positions of command are unable to match resources with competencies and capacity to generate the greatest possibility for public benefit, human happiness indices have been linked to substantive grief and lamentation.
Sudan’s independence never made sense; it was granted but monitored by Egypt with the support from the west, which is why I firmly stated that “the Anglo-Egyptians was indeed a cunning colonial master, they gave the Sudanese the crown but still retained the golden nugget of the crown.” It happened, and the Sudanese government was run like a box, a box whose opening time is regulated by the holder of the key.
The significance of this is that it was first through Anglo Egyptians, whose political crown was primarily worn by the Arab man, with helpless Sudanese kept in the system while blindfolded as citizens with no right or Access to the table of decision-making, and then through Sudanism, whose political crown was worn by another Arab man deputized by another Arab with few blacks who could be supervised to never dream or speak of southern Sudan independence.
To put it on another perspective, preserving the leadership values required southerners to be dominated by politicians who, if they openly expressed views critical of their circumstances, risked being removed from their jobs, convicted guilty of treason, or banished. They may be reinstated to their prior seats if they switched their minds, but they couldn’t lawfully sit at the round table of continuous decision-making. They may, on the other hand, just be permitted to name them. Here you can see how the southerners were brainwashed. It simply means that the colonial master gave the Sudanese political leadership while retaining the values, administrative powers, and directorate by appointing political leaders or kings who, once on the political position would appear and utter a word like genuine South Sudanese, but would be pure British in his psychological mindset. Leaders were taught toward becoming tyrants and never attempt to live in harmony. Wars fragment black cultures, leading individuals to wander and live in anguish, mute, and penniless, resulting in a damaged society.
However, there is a sense in which the dictators have always acknowledged that black traditional belief is the most exclusive religion to their Islamic and Christian, and it does not imply the accommodation of other races. They discussed its variation with that of Jews until they confirmed both religions with no differences except their essential belief in prophecy, of course, and we recognized this when many prophets rose and fell in many parts of south Sudan, and they apologized. Sudan continued to be impoverished for the foreseeable future after the Arabization failed.
Warlords arose, and as part of their strategy for marginalization, they had to create a mentality of grief among the black population, placing them in a problematic political situation. I think most readers around the world are familiar with the old Sudan history; there are books that go into more detail on black identity, resistance, and religion, as well as why they were unable to rein in their self-pride and stopped paying attention to facts that could have liberated their country. Most historians would probably disagree with me....
In the process of pogrom battles and civil wars, good leaders became dictators turning their own citizens into other British and Anglo-Egyptians, leadership became absurd, it is no longer considered as an opportunity to serve and encompasses less ability of an individual to guide individual behavior in the right orchestration. Many agreements failed Sudan, overlooking and omitting that the purpose of leadership is to program and formulate what should be done, and to ensure that it is good for the public at the macro-scale level. In such an environment, all feel unsolicited, excruciating, and tormented in their own country, regardless of their nationality and political affiliation as Sudanese.
Leaders act contrary to their constitutional mandate and obligation, whether in November 1958, 2 years and 320 days of sovereignty council, powering president Ibrahim Abboud that ended on 16th November 1964 when Sirr Al-Khatim Al-Khalifa succeeded him through a transitional process, although the second committee of the sovereignty council empowered general khalifa on 10th June 1965 to 8th July 1965, a ruling that lasted for 189 days after the 3 years and 321 days of Ismail Al Azhari from the democratic unionists’ party took over before Jaafar Nimeiry’s 15 years and 316 days came on 25th May 1969 to 6th April 1985. the fact that Nimeiry was a socialist, he tried correcting the old and contemporary jumble and end up being overthrown by Abdel Rahman Suwar Al-dahab on 6th April 1985, stayed lingering for 208 days on power and resigned, then handed over to prime minster Sadiq Al Mahdi from National Umma Party on 10th October 1986.
Out of all these changes, a few attempts to change politics for the benefit of Sudanese societies may have had some positive effects on Muslim societies but instead resulted in an Islamization program for the region’s non-Muslim residents who also happened to be Southerners. When Mahdi arrived, he formed a coalition with his nephew Muhammad Ahmad Mahgoub so that Mahgoub become the sixth prime minister of Sudan. It was successful despite the emergence of several uprisings, which led to a failed state until the country broke up.
Even if you study Sudan’s history up until the time when the national congress party led by Omar Hassain Albashir planned a successful coup captured the nation as president of Sudan on June 30, 1989. You will discover that prior to south Sudan’s independence, dictators rose and fell, demanding a myriad of reforms, but conditions continue to deteriorate in the eyes of the Sudanese. Leadership became a weapon for killing the weak and safeguarding the powerful when tyrants dominated the political landscape.
The state’s capacity to influence never changes, but only influences in the improper way; they manage Southerners by building bank kathares, which are used to entice southern officials to forsake their self-realization objective because those in positions of command are unable to match resources with competencies and capacity to generate the greatest possibility for public benefit, human happiness indices have been linked to substantive grief and lamentation.
Sudan’s independence never made sense; it was granted but monitored by Egypt with the support from the west, which is why I firmly stated that “the Anglo-Egyptians was indeed a cunning colonial master, they gave the Sudanese the crown but still retained the golden nugget of the crown.” It happened, and the Sudanese government was run like a box, a box whose opening time is regulated by the holder of the key.
The significance of this is that it was first through Anglo Egyptians, whose political crown was primarily worn by the Arab man, with helpless Sudanese kept in the system while blindfolded as citizens with no right or Access to the table of decision-making, and then through Sudanism, whose political crown was worn by another Arab man deputized by another Arab with few blacks who could be supervised to never dream or speak of southern Sudan independence.
To put it on another perspective, preserving the leadership values required southerners to be dominated by politicians who, if they openly expressed views critical of their circumstances, risked being removed from their jobs, convicted guilty of treason, or banished. They may be reinstated to their prior seats if they switched their minds, but they couldn’t lawfully sit at the round table of continuous decision-making. They may, on the other hand, just be permitted to name them. Here you can see how the southerners were brainwashed. It simply means that the colonial master gave the Sudanese political leadership while retaining the values, administrative powers, and directorate by appointing political leaders or kings who, once on the political position would appear and utter a word like genuine South Sudanese, but would be pure British in his psychological mindset. Leaders were taught toward becoming tyrants and never attempt to live in harmony. Wars fragment black cultures, leading individuals to wander and live in anguish, mute, and penniless, resulting in a damaged society.
However, there is a sense in which the dictators have always acknowledged that black traditional belief is the most exclusive religion to their Islamic and Christian, and it does not imply the accommodation of other races. They discussed its variation with that of Jews until they confirmed both religions with no differences except their essential belief in prophecy, of course, and we recognized this when many prophets rose and fell in many parts of south Sudan, and they apologized. Sudan continued to be impoverished for the foreseeable future after the Arabization failed.
Warlords arose, and as part of their strategy for marginalization, they had to create a mentality of grief among the black population, placing them in a problematic political situation. I think most readers around the world are familiar with the old Sudan history; there are books that go into more detail on black identity, resistance, and religion, as well as why they were unable to rein in their self-pride and stopped paying attention to facts that could have liberated their country. Most historians would probably disagree with me....
