Are you concerned about the future of democracy? Do you feel democracy is under attack by extreme greed in countries around the world? Are you sick and tired of: living in fear, corporate greed, growing police state, government for the rich, working more but having less?

Can we use both elections and random selection (in the way we select government officials) to rid democracy of undue influence by extreme wealth and wealth-dominated mass media campaigns?

The world’s first democracy (Athenian democracy, 600 B.C.) used both elections and random selection. Even Aristotle (the cofounder of Western thought) promoted the use random selection as the best way to protect democracy. The idea of randomly selecting (after screening) juries remains from Athenian democracy, but not randomly selecting (after screening) government officials. Why is it used only for individual justice and not also for social justice? Who wins from that? …the extremely wealthy?

What is the best way to combine elections and random selection to protect democracy in today’s world? Can we use elections as the way to screen candidates, and random selection as the way to do the final selection? Who wins from that? …the people?

Sudanese could have simply chosen to put their ‘Xs’ at the ballot box elsewhere other than besides Omar Al Bashir or the National Congress Party (the names of the ‘withdrawn’ were still on the ballot slips.)

They didn’t.

Get over it.

Face up to the cardinal facts: the Sudanese election results have reflected the popular will.

Proof?

Seen any public strikes, tanks in the street, and Thai-style street demonstrations in Khartoum or anywhere else in Sudan for that matter since the election results were announced???

No.

The weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth about President Al Bashir’s re-election and entrenchment of the NCP in some quarters of the international community and the opposition parties is just rank cognitive dissonance to the fact that the majority of ordinary Sudanese both Bashir and the NCP; and that’s why those critics have resorted predictably to cries of foul play.

It’s easier for those critics to remain cocooned in that fantasy rather than face up to that harsh reality staring them straight in the face.

The elections have also underlined that most ordinary Sudanese inform their actions through a different paradigm to the standard black-and-white caricature of Al-Bashir and the NCP that has become fossilized in the UK, USA and elsewhere in the West.

After all, if everything that has been said about Al-Bashir and the NCP is as black-and-white as has been portrayed, then Sudanese would not have re-elected them as they are right here in the mix.

So, my advice for Reuters? Try and drill down into this paradigm (rather than pretending, through cognitive dissonance, that it does not exist) as your standard (Western group-think wisdom – a la pre Iraq invasion) one is not the basis upon which the ’68%’ inform their actions upon.

And in any case, know that when your time is up, your time is up: no amount of resources, campaigning etc can stop an incumbent from being tossed out by the electorate (if there is choice as Sudan had).

Africa, as you know, has been littered with examples where the ruling incumbent party and leader have dominated the media and have larger financial patronage than their challengers, and have STILL lost: KK and Chiluba (Zambia); Jerry Rawlings (Ghana); Moi (Kenya) to name a few.

Nor were Western observers as scathing about the polls as your post paints. President Jimmy Carter, for one, noted there was “no evidence of deliberate fraud by members of the NEC or others”. And I think few could sincerely disagree that the deficiencies had no discernible material impact on the outturn, or that the polls were a definitive step in the right direction towards consolidating peace and democracy throughout Sudan.

More proof? Here’s a quote from an international electoral observer accredited to the Carter Center: “in judging Sudan, it is fair to say their elections were much better organized and more credible than any of the last three held in Nigeria, which I’ve observed, and were much freer and more fair than the upcoming elections in Ethiopia, Rwanda, or Egypt – all American allies – are likely to be.”

In any case, Reuters and other Western news outlets appear to have, at the very least, been exercising self-restraint in their coverage about Sudan’s recent elections.

They all missed (ducked?) the big story from the elections: it wasn’t the (greatly exaggerated) claims and incidents of vote rigging in ‘north’ Sudan, but the widespread cases of voter intimidation, violence and general chaos of the vote in the south.

Indeed, south Sudan might struggle to get international recognition if the forthcoming referendum is held in the same ham-fisted way.

On the recent military confrontation with JEM:

While any civilian casualties are very regrettable, if JEM has to be military degraded and bombed back to the negotiating table, then so be it.

That’s the general feeling here right now amongst ordinary Darfuri civilians here and the Sudanese population generally.

JEM had tried to fan out of West Darfur into South Darfur and South Kordofan; hardly the actions of a group committed to peace.

They have had enough time to get their act together at the negotiating table – seven years and counting – and the future of Darfur and the rest of Sudan will not be held ransom indefinitely by a few hundred men, with no real tangible aims, or concern for the very people they claim to be fighting for (ordinary Darfuri civilians), and who just want to make money out of the banditry that has become commonplace in some parts of Darfur.

The posting above is the kind of comment that has continued to give JEM, SLA Abdul Wahid and other dirigiste rebel groups in Darfur the wiggle room/political space to carry on posturing and vogueing; in other words, doing anything other than sit down with the Government of Sudan with realistic demands for a comprehensive peace.

I mean, get real! How could you sincerely (stress) still doubt the will of the NCP to make comprehensive peace in Darfur, despite it having signed up to internationally brokered (stress) peace agreements with Darfuri rebels, and turning up at anytime, anyplace, and anywhere to try to achieve peace with the myriad Darfuri rebel groups???

After all, what could the Sudanese government possibly gain from the conflict continuing even a minute longer given all the international opprobrium it has received?????
Chew on that for a minute……..

It’s JEM that wants to maintain the status quo – even if is at great expense to ordinary Darfuris.

Your post also leaves the distinct impression that Sudan is exceptional in that it uses aerial bombardment on rebel groups trying to challenge the state violently.

We all know that’s not true.

Or are you suggesting that only Sudan deliberately bombs civilians whereas in other cases around the world (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Gaza, Chechnya, Kashmir, and Northern Uganda) they are just ‘accidents’???

On Press Freedom:

This post (wrongly) gives the distinct impression that press freedom was granted just in the run up to the polls.

That’s not true either.

Sudan has for quite a few years now enjoyed a pluralistic and highly critical (of the Federal Government and, to a much, lesser degree, the Government of South Sudan) for quite a few years now – as anybody who has read the English-language Khartoum Monitor and the Arabic language newspapers in Sudan will readily attest to.

Want proof?? See this link by Reporters without borders – and download the attached PDF: http://en.rsf.org/sudan-darfur-an-invest igation-into-a-18-04-2007,21758.html

Don’t confuse press freedom (a nebulous concept) with meaning that one can write anything however slanderous, libelous, and factually incorrect it is.

Take note, the US, the UK, France and all other Western nations have court injunctions, libel and defamation of character laws in place, too. And governments there use them regularly.

Ibrahim Adam
El Fasher
North Darfur
Sudan