Sudan: The Military Had Aways Been the Problem

Photo: today.ng

Prime Minister Abdallah Hamdok's civilian government had militarily been  dissolved and himself arrested. The Sudanese Military continues to do what it had done best for decades: toppling the civilian governments and always claiming to rescue the country from tumbling over into chaos and other national security concerns that, if not addressed using the power of the gun, would set the country on the path to disorder, failure and possible disintegration. This hypocrisy is outdated; but it has managed to confuse many people who, in dire situations and as a last resort, call on the same army they abhor to take over. Such was the case before the military took advantage of the situation in Khartoum recently. 

But the Sudanese masses are now privy to the army's every malicious move. The military was believed to be behind many subterranean coup attempts against the government, the latest of which has so far become successful. The success of the coup put an end to the 11-member joint Civilian-Military power sharing government, the Sovereignty Council, led by Prime Minister Abdallah Hamdok. The action takes the regularity of military coups in Sudan to another level. When Bashir was ousted in 2018, available studies show that Sudan had had about 15 military coup attempts, five of which were successful. Now the list goes on. 

The Civilian-Military leadership led by Prime Minister Hamdok, to many observers of the Sudanese politics, was an unholy alliance that was not meant to last for long due to historical animosities between the Sudanese military and the civilian governments. The animosity had led many to believe what had really happened was that the military carried out a subtle counter-revolution against the civilian protesters in 2018. The civilians, fed up with military government's malpractices since their 30 years of misrule in which they successfully glided the country into a break up while continuing to starve them, rose up in the name of the shortage of bread. President Bashir had no option but to order the ruthless paramilitary, the Rapid Support Force, which he had used against the people of Darfur and Kordufan mercilessly, to solve the threatening street protests across the country. But the problem failed to go away. The civilians were resolute in their demands and actions irrespective of several deaths they suffered in the process. The army,  fearing that it was being outdone by the civilians whose future government might send most of them to the dock, turned around and joined the civilians, delivering what could be described as a coup-de-grace against President Bashir, their commander in Chief. They claimed, to the cheers of the protesters, to not wanting to shoot at their parents and siblings on the streets. They then worked their way up to being partakers in the government. The only group they sacrificed and arrested was President Bashir and his immediate circle. 

The choreography of power grabbing by the military had gone on one too many in Sudan despite the institution having emerged as the only body that had worried the Sudanese people, set back the building of national identity and cohesiveness, destroyed lives and livelihood and property, and above all, caused a deep social gap among the various Sudanese nationalities and the country as  a whole. In overthrowing Hamdok's civilian government, the military had read the mood from around the world which seems to cuddle the civilian government in the Sudan. As the world begins to open up to Sudan, normalising relations and fostering closer engagement, the military establishment has sensed a threat. They know, as could not be accurately dismissed or considered, that Prime Minister Hamdok might be used internationally to crack down on those wanted for crimes against humanity in the Sudan's long, violent and costly wars. No doubt if The Hague Tribunal focuses deeply on Sudan, most Military Generals of the Sudan Armed Forces would have serious genocidal questions to answer in Darfur and in Kordufan. Their success now in bringing down this civilian-led government is a way of fighting back. They know that as the case against President Bashir, who has already been arrested and facing numerous charges, has come to include the crime of overthrowing the civilian government in 1989, that Hamdok and his civil partners, backed by the international community (both state and non-state actors), might go after them. Stopping them before they act became of necessity. 

Truly, the Sudanese people have much to condemn the military for: they know that had the National Salvation Front, later the National Congress Party, not forced their way to power in 1989, Sudan would have achieved peace with the rebels of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement, and there would have been no drawn out war of attrition, which cost many families their sons and daughters in their primes. They know that the actions of the military neither prevented the division of the country nor are they solving economic crises facing the country on daily basis. It suffices to say that without the historical negative Sudanese military interferences in politics, the division of the country into Sudan and South Sudan would not have happened ten years ago. The hope had always been that had the various civilian governments that had been stifled by the military given the chances they needed, the country would have found a solid uniting foundation and solutions to the multiple problems that impacted it. But the complex Sudanese theocratic politics never allowed anything like that to take hold. Various Sudanese military sciolists have had a history of bypassing what united the Sudanese peoples and had always done the exact opposite.

With the battle now pitting the defenseless protesters against the army with tanks and fleets of pickup vehicles, which are manned by cut-throat national security operatives with people-disappearing capabilities, one thing is clear from the Sudanese people who have nowhere to go: there will be no backing down no matter how much force is being used against them. They know that the kind of the country they want had already been defined by those in the now South Sudan who left when their call for  a meaningful Sudanisation fell on deaf ears, especially on the ears of the Sudanese military. That call was very correct then as it is now, and it has become the yardstick for measuring one's Sudaneseness. It doesn't matter then who gets the power using what means in Khartoum. If the call for power-sharing in any government, wealth sharing in national development and achievement of rights for oneself is not heeded, no amount of military interference  will be tolerated. The Sudanese have come of age, and are here to qualify the epigram that the, 'Sudan will never be the same again.'

Chad After Idriss Deby: Giving Power to the People is the Best Option

Pint.2021. Field Marshal Idriss Deby

The killing of Idriss Deby by the rebels of the Front for Change and Concord in Chad (FACT) and the installation of his son, Mahamat Idriss Deby - also known as General Kaka - by the military against the constitution will not end Chad’s endemic political tragedy. Only the civilian government can bring stability to the country. Chad’s political tragedy since independence had been power: who should hold power and how to replace them. It had always led to the cycle of violence against both the civilians and the leaders, the latest of which was the killing of President Deby in the northern region of Tibesti.

The violent death of Idriss Deby was not the only moment in history in which Chadians had witnessed the brutal killing of the country’s president. The first was the 1975 assassination of the independence president, Francois Tombalbaye, who was secretly killed and buried in a remote town in the region where President Deby would later meet his fate. These two tragedies meant that Chad had not been peaceful in 60 years since independence. Political volatilities and pervasive rebellions had played major negative impacts on the country’s political, cultural, economic, educational, health, and infrastructural developments.

Oftentimes, hostile neighbors in the names of the Sudan and Libya had caused or fuelled Chad’s tragedies. With the help of the former colonial power, France, President Idriss Deby had himself warded off many close calls with some of Chad’s unswerving rebels emanating from these countries. The history of Chad since the killing of Tombalbaye had been a history beset in bloodshed, deviation from the aspirations of the people, and disappointment. 

Above all, Chad is a country at the frontline given that climate change remains a threat to all countries on the planet. It needs enduring peace and stability to be able to focus on responding to the constantly and relentlessly expanding Sahara Desert, which threatens the entire Sahel region from the Red Sea to the Atlantic coast with bareness, rising temperatures, lack of water, and depopulation.

This begs the question: can Chad accept the death of Idriss Deby with equanimity and rechart the path towards a genuine political settlement? Nothing is impossible and a few suggestions can be advanced in that regard. 

Key among these suggestions is cooperation among the leaders. The military, rebels, and civilian leaders can work together to save the people from endless political tragedies by allowing stewardship of the people-centered government to take effect. If this happens, decades of bloodshed, hopelessness, and many other concomitant effects of war would be halted. The generals in the army and in rebellions must understand that a military solution to the country’s internal political problems is not a viable option but could only lead to more misery and disappointments. 

Secondly, working together requires sitting together to resolve problems. The call now is specifically on the military leadership to heed the voices of the people and pursue peace: firstly; either the transitional authority headed by General Kaka relinquishes power to the civilians to organize the elections, or shares power with the civilian authorities to organize a transition to civilian government; secondly, respond positively to the rebels and peacefully negotiate a comprehensive solution to governance problem in the country. Does Chad need help to carry out such commitments? Of course, regional and international bodies and governments have to come to the aid of Chad.   

To begin with, through regional cooperation and international assistance, Chad can be turned into a peaceful oasis in the dunes. As mentioned earlier, it must commence with the neighbors that oftentimes interfered in her internal political dynamics. The community of peace-loving nations must bring pressure to bear on Chad’s neighbors and urge them to commit to good neighborliness that encompasses security cooperation agreements. Such agreements will ensure that proxy wars are not entertained. 

Additionally, the same security cooperation should apply to the countries of the Great Lake Chad Basin: Nigeria, Cameroon, and Niger. Their attention should not only focus on the unfortunate Islamists’ activities of Boko Haram - which Chad is helping in the fight - but also on maintaining security cooperation for better stabilization of the middle Africa region. 

Thirdly, the economic community of West African States (ECOWAS), which had been a regional pacifier and peace enforcer, must not tire to turn attention to Lake Chad Region. The bloc’s support in West Africa ensured that Charles Taylor was made accountable for war atrocities in Liberia, leading to his arrest; conviction, and detention in HM prison Frankland, UK. Such bold steps are needed to ensure that politically struggling nations like Chad find lasting peace and stability. 

Fourthly, the continental body, the African Union, should maintain pressure on the military authorities in Chad to allow civilian government to be formed. Thirty years of military rule under former president Idriss Deby have not accorded Chad any semblance of peace but continuous wars. If deploying a neutral force between the warring factions and the regime in N’djamena will force all to the negotiations for a binding agreement, then it would be a worthy call for the African Union to undertake.

Finally, the former colonial power, France, should take the responsibility of waging peace in Chad. If France desires peace at home and seeks the assistance of Chad in fighting the Islamists/Jihadists in the Sahel, as Chad had dependably been doing, then France must not appear to be soft on the rebels and military rulers but to side with the people so that the democratic governance is realized. Anything short will always be read along the lines of the endorsement of the status quo. Most of Chad’s rebel leaders such as Mahamat Mahdi Ali of FACT (former deposed President Hissène Habré’s kinsman) and Mahamat Nouri of The Union of Forces for Democracy and Development (UFDD) are cozied in Paris. They can comply with peace initiatives if pressured by the host. If this happens, peace will ring in Chad, and if it does, genuine democratic governance will endure – and there would be no reason in the future why a democratically elected president would rush to the frontline a day after winning the elections only to die in battle.