It was an unlikely development when Sudan and Ethiopia, within the same period in 2018, observed positive political changes sparked by popular protests which led incumbents to abandon power after decades. This much sought after change that demanded democratization, was emphatically supported by the west as it was antithetical to former regional characterizations of unrest, human rights violations, and crimes against humanity, including genocide regarding Sudan.
Though the three-year storm in Ethiopia dissipated with the premiership of Dr. Abiy Ahmed, Sudan was yet to achieve lasting peace after the resignation of one of the continent’s longest-serving presidents – Omar Hassan Al Bashir. Hence, the then-popular 42-year-old Prime Minister of Ethiopia hailed for his peace initiatives with Eritrea, stepped in. Amidst managing internal problems and despite the Eritrean peace deal being unripe and marred with questions, Abiy facilitated the signing of an agreement between the Sudanese military and civilian wings of the popular protests.
Moreover, during a speech supported by chants, Abiy stated the Sudanese must be, “Custodians of peace and the guardians of dignity as they work toward building a democracy.” Congratulating the Transitional Military Council (TMC) and the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC) for their success and underlining that dialogue is the only way for a win-win solution, Abiy stressed, “In your commitment for dialogue and openness for engagement, you have all demonstrated that our historic African tradition of coming together for problem-solving will always be the beacon lighting our way to our greater potential for harmony.”
The agreement gave the FFC 67 percent of the 300-seated legislative council with the mandate of appointing the Prime Minister. The TMC became the supreme commander of the Sudanese Armed Forces with duties to chair the Sovereign Council and appoint interior and defense ministers. However, this optimism was short-lived due to the power struggle between the military and civilian wings of the transitional government headed by Abdallah Hamdok until his resignation in January 2022.
According to conversations between experts and Prime Minister Hamdok, the central problem to the Sudanese political quagmire is the power struggle between the military and civilian wings of the transitional government. The military wing, led by General Abdul Fattah Al-Burhan, did not want to relinquish power obtained from the resignation of Bashir. “The military wing has appeared to be resistant to change. They don’t want civilian oversight because they want to maintain their control over state assets,” expressed an international relations expert.
In addition, interference from foreign actors is implicated in complicating the developments in Sudan. Cognizant of this, the Ethiopian government repeatedly encouraged the Sudanese people to resolve their internal affairs by themselves. Following the military coup that ousted Prime Minister Hamdok, the Office of the Prime Minister of Ethiopia states;
At a time when our optimism and our firm confidence in the existence of a way out of the current crisis; we also see the danger of slipping into the abyss of differences and the spiral of political polarization.We trust with every confidence that Sudanese experience and wisdom will prevail in completing the entitlements of the constitution document and the Juba Agreement for Sudanese Peace, to achieve the aspirations of the Sudanese people,” adding that, “we also warn against the interference of the forces of evil, which are trying to impose their hegemony on our region and undermine the independence of our fateful decisions.
However, the military did not refrain fromputting Prime Minister Hamdok on house arrest and others behind bars. General Burhan took power and declared a state of emergency leading to mass protests across the nation. This reverted the Sudanese political transition to square one, with the added criticism from the US in the form of the suspension of 700 million USD of emergency assistance and economic support funds. Later, in January of 2022, Prime Minister Hamdok resigned claiming the country to be at a “dangerous turning point that threatens its survival,” and it is “sliding towards disaster.”
… the central problem to the Sudanese political quagmire is the power struggle between the military and civilian wings of the transitional government.
The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) reported that “There are red lines of a different sort in the Horn of Africa, indicating that the developments in Sudan are attracting various interest groups such as the Gulf countries, Russia, and Turkey who have political and economic interests in the Horn region.
Furthermore, ACLED’s analysis underlines that both Sudan and Ethiopia are at a crossroads of internal strife, but have intertwined interests that need to support each other. In this sense, destabilization in one of the Horn nations extends out and involves various actors complicating matters further. Thus, ACLED reports;
This nexus of reciprocal support [between Ethiopia and Sudan] has been expanded and reinforced partly by the strengthening of multilateral organizations (including the African Union and, to a lesser extent, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development in the Horn-IGAD) … and have increasingly understood that their survival is usually best served by strengthening ties and limiting cross border sabotage and subversion.
In an analysis forwarded by the Institute of Security Studies (ISS), Shewit Woldemichael argues that in addition to the “Deep-seated political and identity-based polarization that prevents Sudan from resolving fundamental issues of citizenship and statehood … the exclusion of political parties and two major armed groups will make achieving sustainable peace difficult.”
Shewit concludes that despite progress madeduring Sudan’s one-year transition, significant challenges remain including the imbalance of power between military and civilian actors, the disregard for provisions in the Constitutional Document which set terms for the transitional period, the dispute within the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC), and the eroded powers of the Sovereign Council. For the resolution of the crisis in Sudan, she advises external forces to refrain from exacerbating the preexisting divisions, but rather to contribute to the success of the transition in a positive manner. Shewit further expresses that regional and continental bodies provide political and technical support and that Sudan’s security apparatus works to restore the public’s trust.
… the developments in Sudan are attracting various interest groups such as the Gulf countries, Russia, and Turkey who have political and economic interests in the Horn region.
Nevertheless, not all sides admit to their shortcomings. The military blames the civilian government for all failures to ensure a transition within the 21-month time frame per the constitution. The civilian government, on the other hand, recognizes the shortcomings of both sides and hopes for settlement through negotiation. Cameron Hudson’spiece in the Atlantic Council notes, “Sudan’s transitional charter and the effectively forced marriage between civilian and military leaders it created was an artful way to address the winner-take all system that has long defined Sudan’s political existence. But in the current impasse, both sides feel like they are losing.”
As Sudan’s path to a democratic transition remains unclear, experts observe this lengthy and turbulent period, coupled with the crises in Northern Ethiopia, might embolden foreign actors to meddle further compromising regional stability. Given that the African Union does not have the mandate to interfere in political resolution on the part of state actors, it temporarily suspended Sudan from membership; reiterating its calls for all stakeholders to responsibly act in the transition.
Concerned with the ever-growing political crisis on the continent, Musa Faki Mahamat, the Chairperson of the African Union Commission, said at the 35th African Union Summit in Addis Ababa, that the Commission should not continue in a manner that it is considered as a simple secretary for member states.
As Sudan’s path to a democratic transition remains unclear, experts observe this lengthy and turbulent period, coupled with the crises in Northern Ethiopia, might embolden foreign actors to meddle further compromising regional stability.