political crisis in Sudan

the story So Far: Sudan’s civilian prime minister Abdullah Hamdok resigned on Sunday, triggering further turmoil in the country. Mr Hamdok, who was sacked by the military in October and reinstated a few weeks later as part of a deal, stepped down as anti-military protests continued in the country. The protesters rejected Mr Hamdok’s agreement with the military and demanded the generals hand over power to an independent civilian authority.

Who is Abdullah Hamdok?

A trained economist, Mr Hamdok worked with the United Nations in the early 2000s. Born in Sudan in 1956, he earned a bachelor’s degree at Khartoum University and a doctorate in economic studies from the University of Manchester. In 2018, deposed dictator Omar Bashir named him as the finance minister. But he turned down this offer. Mr Bashir had to resign in 2019 amid massive protests. The army formed a transition council and took over the reins of the country. But the attempts of the generals to consolidate power were thwarted by the demonstrators. Eventually, the military agreed to share power with the civilian leaders. The civil society coalition leading the Movement for Democracy, a Force of Freedom and Change, proposed Mr Hamdok as prime minister after a power-sharing agreement was signed in August 2019. Subsequently, an 11-member body, the Sovereignty Council comprising military and civilian leaders, which replaced the military-led Transition Council, appointed Mr Hamdok as prime minister. During the Sovereignty Council’s rule, Sudan entered into a peace deal with rebel groups, banned female genital mutilation, made peace with Israel, and reached out to international powers for economic assistance. During this period, the US removed the country from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Domestic reform and international recognition suggested that Sudan was on a slow but steady transition to full democracy. But then the army attacked again.

What is the reason for the current crisis?

Ever since the mass protests broke out in late 2018, the military has done everything possible to protect its privileges. It first removed Mr Bashir and established the Transition Council. When direct rule became untenable, the generals agreed to share power. But the social support of civilian leaders and the consolidation of political power made the generals nervous. According to the agreement, the caretaker prime minister (Mr Hamdok) would run day-to-day affairs, while the military chief would remain leader of the Sovereignty Council for two years. The military chief, Lieutenant General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, was set to hand over leadership of the transitional government to the civilian leadership last year. Instead, he dissolved the government, declared himself the new leader, declared a state of emergency, and in October 2021 imprisoned civilian leaders, including Mr. Hamdok. The army was preparing the ground before the coup. Amidst rising prices of essential commodities, the pro-army crowd had protested demanding the removal of the government. Port Sudan, the country’s largest port on the Red Sea, was blocked by a tribal group with military help, worsening economic conditions including acute shortages of food, currency and fuel. But General Burhan failed to garner support after the coup. As the protests continued, they reinstated Prime Minister Hamdok, but without the Sovereignty Council. This meant that the military could exercise more control over the civilian government. The demonstrators did not buy an apparent concession by the military. He called Mr Hamdok a “traitor” to strike a deal with the military and led the movement. Eventually, unable to convince his old comrades that he could form an independent technical government, Mr. Hamdok stepped down.

What explains the civil-military rift?

Tensions between the civilian leadership and military leaders were at least one issue, with a power-sharing agreement between the civilians and the military promising elections in late 2022 after the draft Constitution Declaration was signed on August 4, 2019. Remains But – Bringing Back the dictator Mr. Bashir’s regime is responsible for genocidal acts, human rights abuses and corruption. Analysts say the military was uncomfortable with this because it would expose their own actions and their financial interests that were vested during Mr. Bashir’s rule. Eventually, General Burhan played a key role as Inspector General of the Armed Forces during the end of Mr. Bashir’s tenure – overseeing Sudan’s intervention in the Yemen Civil War. He had also been a regional army commander in Darfur between 2003 and 2008, a period that saw hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.

What will happen next?

The army is now in a difficult position. Given that the civil-military relationship is already at breaking point, generals establishing direct rule – the Myanmar model – would be extremely unpopular. So General Burhan reinstated Mr. Hamdok in the first place. What the military wants is a civilian prime minister without real powers. Now that Mr Hamdok is gone, the generals will be under pressure to appoint another civilian government. As per the 2019 Constitutional Declaration, the Prime Minister must be selected by a Legislative Council and then endorsed by the Sovereignty Council. The Legislative Council was never formed and the Sovereignty Council was dissolved. Hence there is a possibility of appointing another technocrat directly by the army. But this will not solve the crisis. If the protesters do not accept Mr Hamdok as their prime minister, they are unlikely to accept anyone else whom the military will appoint next. And this political crisis is being played out at a time when Sudan is going through a severe economic crisis. Weeks of protests have crippled an already weak economy. Inflation has exceeded 400% in recent months.

The United Nations estimates that in 2022 at least a third of the country’s 43 million people will need humanitarian aid. What Sudan wants is a stable, responsive government that can quickly address the myriad problems facing the country. But the question is whether the army is committed to democratic change.

With inputs from Srinivasan Ramani