Consensual democracy to prevent parliament “Oh, Booth, what fell into your eyes” (2-3). Written by: Dr. Abdullah Ali Ibrahim
There is no doubt that democracy is the last concern of those who invite us to elections these days. They are from the people “Oh my neck, save me” from the revolution to fish in the turbid water that is the muddy of change and have bitten them with his fist since December 2018. Elections are not the solution, as occurred in the minds of the counter-revolution. Our demand since the October 1964 revolution has been consensual democracy in today’s term. It is the democracy in which we contract around a parliament in which all sectors of society see themselves and are keen on it. It follows from this that we be humbled by an electoral law in which we will have to violate the principle of one vote for one citizen with a tolerance that guarantees generous representation of social forces such as the city and its modern forces, women and youth to ensure the sustainability of democracy. Our parliaments, which committed themselves to the one vote of one citizen in 1958, 1965 and 1985, did not survive because the countryside, mostly armed at that time with traditional parties, dominated. The modern forces, including the army and professionals who are the mainstay of the state, did not find themselves in it, so they retired from it and then attacked it.
Our eagerness to hold elections, which makes parliamentarianism a consensus and a pact in us, is what prompted me to say that the call for the counter-revolution for elections as a way out of the polarization we are in does not emanate from enthusiasm for democracy. If you asked them about this state of opportunism, they would have told you that democracy itself is not suitable for Sudan because it only came with a revolution in its wind: the malicious cycle. They came with pretexts to evaporate democracy from us by saying that we are devoid of democratic culture, or that the pastoral mind has empowered us. It was said that she is like wearing a triple suit in the summer of Sudan. And instead of slowing down to think about what makes democracy sustainable in us, you find them rushing today to quick elections, from which they are not protected by the fact that the parliament that will get them will turn its page as hasty as its predecessors. Their demand is not democracy. Their demand from the elections that, in the midst of their felony and opportunism, is to cut off the path of the revolution. Our keenness to put in place an electoral law for consensual democracy is our path to sustainable parliamentarism. It is our sure path to the national consensus in which Al-Hilla, Aita and Al-Naqqara are writing a stick.
Our call on the side of the revolution for a consensual post-revolution democracy is as old as it has been. Unfortunately, it did not find a legal constraint for it during the long opposition to the rescue. We on the left have called for such democracy since the October 1964 revolution and then in 1985 without naming it. Neither the opposition nor the academic circles were preoccupied with its jurisprudence, although it has become a well-known term in political science in the context of positive discrimination against women, for example. It was broadcast by the late Imam Al-Sadiq Al-Mahdi and the late Al-Tayyib Zain Al-Abidin.
The feature of this democracy is what I call “reliability”. The holder of the suffrage majority waives it a little to make way for the representation of rival groups who have less chance of suffrage in the suffrage. And the one who prevails does not take this comfort out of kindness or tenderness, but rather because he may have been the biggest beneficiary of the stability of the parliamentary institution, for example. When we presented the proposals for consensual democracy to the majority parties: the Umma Party and the National Unionist Party (1964) and the Umma Party and the Democratic Union (1985), they deafened their permission, in honor of their abundance, and adhered to “one vote for one citizen.” And it happened.
We were not insisting on the subtleties of our proposals for consensual democracy, such as allocating districts for workers and farmers, or increasing the number of urban districts. Our suggestions were just our keenness not to establish a parliament in which the countryside is dominated, so that many sectors of our people do not see themselves in it, so they isolate them, and it becomes a subject for their mockery, such as “Oh booth, raise what fell in your eyes”, and the coup will affect him. And elections were held after the two revolutions on the principle of the majority of all hunting. There are two parliaments. Neither of them lasted for more than 4 years. It is said greed and what is collected.
Do we have experiences in our democratic practice that we have approached this consensual democracy with which we are pleased?
Yes. Let us lead by example in the alumni circles since 1954 and in the Proportional Representation Union at the University of Khartoum, as we shall see.
Does anyone in possession of a booklet evaluating the 1965 elections issued by the Sudanese Communist Party would be kind enough to provide us with a copy of it?