Criticism of the symbols of the revolution in Sudan .. What causes and justifications?

Khartoum-Jazeera Net

Leaders of the forces of freedom and change have not escaped criticism, after their hard work in reaching with the Military Council of the constitutional document governing the work of the transitional government institutions in Sudan during the next three years.

Social networking sites and some newspapers rained symbols of the revolution with arrows of criticism, and most of the criticism came from within the rebel entity.

Some voices accused the negotiators of the revolution of self-betrayal of the revolution and of failing to limit the role of the military within the structures of the transitional government.

The attack on the symbols of the forces of change and the gathering of professionals is seen as the first truly democratic exercise, subject to the political arena of three decades of dictatorship holding.

Although critique of the symbols is carried out by revolutionary activists that toppled President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, the former head of the doctors' committee, Dr. Ahmed al-Babi, considers the attack on those leaders "a campaign made by the remains of the Islamists through their electronic battalions.

Al-Bawabi does not deny that the negotiators of the revolution "enabled the military to power, especially within the Sovereign Council," but the climate of the revolution at this stage "naturally crowded with suspicions," acknowledging that there is "a state of uncertainty that has made some of the credibility and sincerity of individuals and institutions influencing the agreements that Reached after the revolution. "

Some of these doubts have dimensions and motives, according to Al-Bawabi, including the sharp polarization within the forces of change themselves, and in particular between the "appeal of Sudan, the forces of national consensus."

Loud voice
According to observers, the Communist Party is the most vocal in criticizing the constitutional document, to the extent that some of its cadres described the content as a cook prepared by the junta former security chief Salah Gosh.

This view is refuted by writer and journalist Dr. Tarek Al-Sheikh in describing the recent meetings between the military and the forces of change as "very ambiguous, which led to say that there is a smell what negotiators do not talk about."

According to Sheikh, this is a case of suspicion and question, as expressed by the position of the Communist Party on the document, saying that negotiators on behalf of the forces of change "underestimated the people when they deliberately work behind the curtain, and the people realize through his experiences how the behavior of the military when it comes to power."

He denounced the attack on the communists, saying they "refused to negotiate covered and unclear things." He went further, describing some symbols of the forces of change as "self-aspiring."

"Self-inflated"
Journalist and political analyst Mohammed al-Asbat says some symbols of the forces of change "have swelled themselves and forgot that their primary duty is to negotiate, not aspire to positions."

Tribes point out that some leaders have emerged as potential candidates for the Sovereign Council and the Council of Ministers.

"This is a violation of what is allowed, because those who negotiate should be impartial and not looking for exceptional conditions," he said.

Some tribal leaders are turning their backs on their "partisan face", which runs counter to the rebels' desire to form a competent government to serve the country during the transition.

Bidding charges
Press and media professor, Dr. Jalal, accuses some of the armed movements of increasing their criticism of the forces of freedom and change, saying that they "cover up the marginalization in order to dictate their conditions under the new situation."

He believes that the problem of the Revolutionary Front with the forces of freedom and change "began from the presentation of Tom Hago to be its representative within the forces of the revolution."

In his view, this actor is "one of the aspirants of the ascendancy to the Council of Sovereignty" and, as Dr. Ziada described, "among the majority of the attackers of the document who are presented to the drums of the counter-revolution."

Due to the fact that change is based on the realities of the current reality, "the agreement between the forces of change and the military council was not ideal, and it is not possible to achieve all the demands of the rebels," according to Dr. Nur Hamad academic and Sudan researcher.

Speaking to Al Jazeera Net, Hamad says, "The revolution has not reached its end yet, and will not reach it only after a while, and no revolution in history, but opposed by fierce opposition from the dominant forces targeted by the revolution."

He adds that the critique of the symbols of the forces of change and the gathering of professionals is normal. at least".

Inherited diseases
In his view, the forces of change "have not been discharged from the inherited political diseases that have continued to kill the health of political bodies." Dr. Hamad points to the phenomenon of the Rapid Support Forces and its commander, Hamedati, who, in the turbulent times of the revolution, has become a "party to the solution."

"But the revolution has successive waves, just as the advent of crises does not drop a single sentence from the sky just to uproot the old regime's revolutionaries."

For his part, spokesman for the forces of freedom and change Salah Shoaib is not surprised that the leaders of the revolution were attacked by remnants of the old regime, or by activists of the movement, but confirms that the forces of the Declaration of Change is able to protect its achievements.

He considered that "putting obstacles in front of the rebels will not discourage them from attaining civil power and establishing a pluralistic democratic system that will hold those who have been guilty of crimes against the people for 30 years."