Editor’s Note: Justin Lynch is a researcher and analyst in Washington, DC. He is the co-author of the book “Sudan’s Unfinished Democracy.” The views expressed here are their own. Read more comments at CNN.
CNN
—
Four years ago, closer to this day, the people of Sudan were celebrating a revolution after the overthrow of longtime dictator Omar al-Bashir. Now the East African country must face possibility of complete collapse similar to the chaos we see today in Yemen or Libya.
On Saturday, rival military factions began fighting in the capital, Khartoum. The two sides vie for control of the nation’s airports, bases and military zones. Violence quickly spilled onto the streets and across the country.
Some 45 million Sudanese are actually held hostage and cannot venture out of their homes for fear of being killed in the crossfire. At least 180 people were killed in the fighting, including three World food program humanitarian workers.
The conflict pits two fierce rivals and their powerful armed forces against each other. On one side is the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), commanded by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. On the other side is the Rapid Support Force (RSF), a paramilitary group led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemeti.
There is no good side in this conflict. Both have been accused of human rights violations for a long time.
How did Sudan go from abandoning autocracy and creating a fledgling democracy a few years ago to teetering on the brink of state collapse?
On April 11, 2019, the longtime dictator of Sudan, Bashir, ousted. Bashir’s removal was caused by months-long protests led by Sudanese unions, which prompted a military coup from the SAF and RSF. Both Burhan and Hemeti join forces to get rid of their former boss.
It is a time of promise because there is hope for democracy. I remember walking around the “sitting carnival” – a giant freedom festival in the middle of Khartoum that protesters stopped to demand change. It’s electricity.
But social movements like the Sudan Professionals Association (SPA) – the association behind the protest – often struggle to translate their protest momentum into real political power.
The reason for this is, in part, structural. Social movements like SPA are often grassroots-based. A dictator can arrest one or two leaders of an organization, but not an entire country.
However, once a dictator is overthrown, these types of social movements often struggle to build the leadership hierarchy needed in the political negotiations that take place. Like many other movements, protesters in Sudan have not been able to turn mobilization into political power.
Civilian leaders engaged in negotiations with the military about the future of the country shortly after the fall of Bashir in April 2019. The two sides are unequal. Because of these leadership challenges, pro-democracy forces have struggled to bargain with the disciplined military.
Any momentum that pro-democracy advocates had in the negotiations was extinguished in June 2019 when RSF soldiers violently dispersed the sit in. More than 100 people were killed.
After the June massacre and leadership challenges, transitional constitution was signed in August 2019, giving the SAF and RSF most of the power in Sudan. Burhan was the head of state, and Hemeti was placed in a high political position. Elections have been promised in 2022, but few believe they will actually take place.
The transition period started in August 2019, and I interviewed Abdalla Hamdok, the civilian prime minister, several times for a book that I co-wrote about the Sudanese revolution. The way the constitution is written means that Hamdok has limited power as prime minister. Burhan was the head of state and wanted to maintain the power of the SAF.
Hamdok often told me that revolutions happen in cycles. Bashir’s removal in 2019 was a culmination of the revolution, and he sees it as his job to implement as many reforms as possible before the low tide of counter-revolution washes him away.
Hamdok found that the legacy of 30 years of dictatorship meant that Sudan’s economic and political models were crumbling. But Burhan and Hemeti thwarted the major reforms Hamdok wanted to make.
Violence outside Khartoum increased. Parts of Sudan like Darfur saw a new round of conflict between ethnic groups orchestrated by the RSF military. More than 430,000 people has been relocated conflict in Sudan, mainly in Darfur.
The soldiers did not hide the atrocities they inflicted on civilians. I remember having tea with an RSF affiliated soldier at his home in Darfur as he explained why he had recently participated in the burning of a village by another ethnic group .
The soldier reasoned that a member of his tribe had been killed in a melee, so forces affiliated with the RSF took revenge by burning down a village that was once his home. 30,000 people. At least 163 people died.
Tensions between SAF and RSF are increasing. Burhan considers Hemeti and his RSF forces to be upstart usurpers from Darfur who are undisciplined. On the other hand, Hemeti believes that it is time for Darfur to lead Sudan.
Hamdok was on the verge of starting to turn the economy around when Burhan and the SAF intervened. As we wrote in our book “Sudan’s Imperfect Democracy,” the possibility of a civilian government’s success was overwhelming for Burhan. In October 2021, Hamdok has been deleted in a military coup.
After the October 2021 coup, the United States and the United Nations pushed for a worse version of the transitional constitution in Sudan. They quarreled that it is the best way to bring about democracy.
The idea is to start the transition again, but I and many others think that’s short-sighted and won’t work. Going back to a government led by Burhan is clearly won’t open in democracy. If the plan ended with a coup the first time, why did it succeed the second?
Some activists have stopped cooperating with the United States and see the mission of the United Nations as a barrier to democracy for these policies. I regret speaking to the best diplomats in the United States and abroad, who also understand that international policy in Sudan will not work. They see flaws but feel powerless to oppose and are forced to carry out the decisions of their superiors at many levels.
What preceded the outbreak of clashes this weekend was controversial part on international policy tried to unify the SAF and the RSF. The idea was to form a single army, but neither Hemeti nor Burhan wanted to give up the power they had accumulated.
The plan to unify the army did not work in a similar context. that is repeat of 2013 and 2016 reunification took place in South Sudan with similarly bloody results. Instead, the fragile relationship between Burhan and Hemeti boiled with pressure.
It is easy to look at the recent history of “revolutions” in countries like Myanmar, Tunisia, Egypt, and Sudan and conclude that they will ultimately backfire. I disagree. I have learned from Sudanese activists that the political destiny of a country is an active battle.
One day we can hope that Sudan will see democratic dreams come true. But right now, the people of Sudan just want to survive the day.
The lesson from Sudan is that a revolution is only the beginning of change, not the end.
