The emergence of institutions and democracy is far beyond reality in Sudan. Ever since the declaration of independence in 1956 from British colonial rule, Sudan has experienced all forms of military dictatorship failing to establish democratic order. A functioning democratic government and independent civic institutions are of paramount importance in securing sustainable peace and economic progress in the country.
Since Sudan declared independence from the dual administration of the British colonial powers and Egyptian rulers in 1956, the country has been through a difficult, bloody journey, making the transition to democracy almost delusional. It had been through numerous military coups since its emancipation from the guardian administration of the Anglo-Egyptians. The British colonial administration had insinuated factions among people from different ethnic and religious backgrounds through its manipulative system of exploitation: divide and rule policy. Such divisive and exploitative policies of the colonial rulers had left Sudan with a weak centralized government that favored some parts of society while heinously inflicting all forms of atrocities on the people in other parts of the country.
The military government of the Sudan had been partial towards people from the vicinity of Khartoum and for people along the Nile River. According to several historical accounts of Sudan, political power emanates from the area around the capital in the proximity radius to the Nile. People from other regions of the country, such as Darfur and the southern area, are victims of maladministration, unequal economic opportunities, and violations of all forms of human rights. The atrocities that had claimed the lives of over 300,000 innocent inhabitants of the Darfur region will remain a notable incident depicting the undemocratic stance of the government of Sudan. The subsequent military rulers and the longest-serving leadership of Omar Al Bashir following his demise clearly show the minimal interest of the leaders to transition the country to democracy. The egoistic individual interests of the leaders have driven the country along the path of insecurity, devastation, and a sense of disillusionment among the people of Sudan.
The civil war in Darfur and South Sudan’s movement for secession had left the country deteriorated in almost all forms of social, economic and technological advancements. The continuing conflict in the regions had deplorably left the country incompetent throwing a stark spillover effect on the neighboring countries such as Ethiopia, Chad and others. The call for international institutions for relentless assistance is also the other manifestation of the region’s decline in all walks of human terms.
The Military rulers of the Sudan were reluctant to hand over power to the civilian administration failing to streamline the country along the path of democracy. The abortion of the civilian leadership by the military junta in the aftermath of the removal of the long-serving leader Omar Al Bashir shows the yet unreachable and bleak pathway to enshrine democracy in the country.
The end of Omar Al Bashir’s military rule had inculcated audacious hope for the spark of progressive democracy in the political atmosphere of Sudan. The demise of his dictatorial military leadership had come up with a fervent expectation coupled with a democratic civilian administration leading the country toward sustainable achievements in all spheres of the country’s move. However, such expectations for the light of enlightenment in the country came to be far from being a pragmatic reality. The Sudan has yet terribly thirsty for democratic order and a sustainably functioning government for over half a century ever since its liberty from the Anglo-Egyptian colonial protectorate administration.
Why did the transition to democracy fail?
First of all, the military’s exclusive dominance over all institutions had become the overarching impediment to the flourishing of the rule of law in the country. The military junta of Sudan brutally controls all aspects of the society opening opportunities only for the selected few. People from different lines of political attitudes are doomed for suppressive treatment with impunity. The military wing had abandoned its prime role of giving equal legal protection to all the inhabitants in every corner of the country.
Subsequently, as the military is the guardian of the people of the state, it should refrain from taking part in enriching itself by way of fraudulent activities. For instance, Omar Al Bashir, the longest-serving military ruler, is known for accumulating wealth while the people are deprived of receiving equal employment and economic opportunities for over three scores of decades. The military should display its allegiance to the people rather than inflicting partiality against the harmless civilians focusing on the temporary benefits that would likely jeopardize its future destiny.
Following the overthrow of Omar Al Bashir with the joint federal military force of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) headed by General Abdel Fettah Al Burhan and the Rapid Sudanese Force (RSF) led by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo with the nickname “Hemeti” in April 2019, the two leaders came to take control of the country with the aim to hand over the leadership to civilian rule. Consequently, Abdela Hamdok, the civilian personnel, came to power with the emergence of a democratic system in the political atmosphere of Sudan. However, the civilian administration set out by Abdela Hamdok came to a halt with the military coup by General Al Buran.
General Al Buran assumed the presidency of Sudan, and General Hamdan Dagalo (Hemeti) was appointed as the deputy president of Sudan. The two military leaders who deposed Omar Al Bashir were in charge of presiding over separate military forces even after seizing the highest office of leadership in the country. The lack of unity of command in leadership came to turn the country apart.
What is the world’s takeaway from the devastating conflict in the country as a result of the two main military leaders in Sudan?
The prime takeaway from the current devastating situation in Sudan is the negative consequences of the lack of a unified line of command. The lack of unified command gave rise to the weak power of centralization, leading the country to total disintegration. The leader’s failure to institute a singularly unified line of systems in the government brought up a power vacuum with divided states conflicting against each other.
The other scenario the world could take from such a detestable conflict in Sudan could presumably be the significance of giving precedence to national interest over personal interest. The conflict erupted in the country as a result of the scramble for power between the two military leaders, sidelining the national interest and exposing the entire people to various catastrophic situations.
The other takeaway that everyone could learn from such a traumatic situation in Sudan is the detrimental effect of leaving a painful historical legacy to the people of the country and the world at large. The world is notable for a number of leaders who left an indelible legacy to their country, such as Mahatma Gandhi of India and the makers of the United States of America, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, establishing unshakable democracy for their subsequent generations.
On the other side of the road, however, the conflicting leaders in Sudan are leaving behind a traumatic, destructive legacy to their own people, which would also remain more consequential to themselves.
BY WONDWOSSEN ALEMAYEHU
THE ETHIOPIAN HERALD SUNDAY EDITION 15 SEPTEMBER 2024
