Let’s all hope (and pray if that’s your way) that they get this right this time.
1
will throwing out the military leaders allow terrorist groups to move in?
"... that they had reached an agreement to share power for just over three years, and then to hold elections that would usher in democratic rule...."
Sounds good in theory. But the USA sounds good in theory too. Problem in Sudan, and in the USA, is the level of sophistication within the electorate.
Our electorate in the USA increasingly is poorly informed, believes whatever lies are told by right wing sources, and come to the pollis with time-tested bigotries that make them malleable in the hands of divide and conquer demagogues.
Without factual information and honest office seekers the future for both nations is dubious.
2
The civilian movement must take this interim to organize people, gain legitimacy for democratic rule, and prepare for military divide and conquer tactics, harassment, arrests, and a possible coup. This dual power is unstable—the military does not want to relinquish control. As civilian leaders prove their strength and competence as organizers and administrators to the people, they can pressure the military to accept a secondary role in government.
The "transitional" period seems much too long. With the help of regional powers and organizations Sudan could easily hold elections within six months. Extended transitional periods are meant to improve the chances for civilian political mobilization, but things usually don't work out that way.
One has to ask why Sudan even needs an army of the size and expense of the one it has; a national gendarmerie would be enough to keep order in a country that had a decent government.
Instead it's likely that the same old "parties" that doomed civilian governments in 1958, 1965, and 1989 will worm their way back into power, after which history will repeat itself. With the economy in a tailspin, the oil reserves mostly on the wrong side of the new international border to the south, and a political culture dominated by cronyism (and even by what has been convincingly called kleptocracy), there is little reason for optimism.
3
To have military leaders in front for the first 21 months seems quite a concession, one that the recent death-dealing crackdown may have influenced. What then of divisions within "civilian" ranks? The military may have temporarily united their opponents, but after 21 months of more military rule, they will surely have fractured by then, perhaps something the military is counting on.
1
Historically, power-sharing agreements are often used by the dominant member of the pact as a tactic to stall a populist movement and bide time until everyone turns their back. Then the unwelcome partners are squeezed out, and it's back to business as usual. So, the African Union will have to watch this one carefully.
13
I had been able to follow the events in Sudan over the last few months because it has been closely covered by Al Jazeera, news network that is truly global in its news coverage.
I have been truly impressed by the courage and tenacity of the Sudanese people in their demands for a democratically elected civilian government. The faced up to their military, which had demonstrated its willingness to fire live ammunition at demonstrators, and yet they kept coming out in large numbers everywhere in the country.
Watching this epic battle, it occurred to me that while the passion for democracy seems to be dying in the West, it appears to be powerful and growing in places like Sudan and Tunisia.
14
let's see how many people move to Sudan as compared to those who want to enter the US
@Jack Shultz The Sudanese stood up to the army in 1964 and 1985, too, only to have weak civilian leaders waste the opportunity to forge a clean democratically-elected government. The last civilian government, led by Sadiq al-Mahdi, was overthrown in 1989, and it took until now to get rid of the regime that succeeded it. One can hope for a better outcome this time, but the odds are against that.
It may indeed be too much to hope for. However after working there 14 times in 22 years for a couple of years altogether, practically all in villages, I can say the Sudanese are a determined people when roused.
5
It looks as though the military is hoping that they can coopt some of the more prominent civilians. I wish it were otherwise, but it's extremely hard to see this agreement leading to a civilian democracy.
4
I think this is a mistake. They should have held out like they did at the beginning right after the massacre. The army was panicking at that time when the protesters demanded an immediate removal of all military leaders and an international investigation into the murders. They were about to give in and may have even fled the country, but at the last minute the protesters agreed to stop the protests.
This is what the military does after every revolution. They just want to lull the protesters into some agreement then they will gradually stoke divisions then get back in power once the public is too divided to resist them.
How can they agree to share power with the very people who murdered and raped their civilians? The Egyptians made that mistake with the military and look what happened. The Egyptian military even allowed a democratically elected president to rule for one year before stoking hatred and division then ousted him in a coup. Now we have the most brutal and corrupt military dictatorship in Egyptian modern history.
The Sudanese should always look out for attempts by the military to stoke hatred and division, and if they do, they should be ready to use the only power they have, mass protests. And they should be ready to do it again and again until they get their freedom. Otherwise, they will live the next 30 years longing for the good old days of Omar Al-Bashir.
13
@SEK
Absolutely true — or at least, so it seems to me. From the facts stated in this article, my takeaway is that for the next 21 months, the military will remain in power, and the only real fundamental change that has been agreed to here is that the protests will stop and the protesters will go home.
After 21 months, if the protesters, and the rest of the people of Sudan, and the readers of this article, and the so-called “international community” think that the military will simply allow civilians to dominate the transitional government and 18 months later usher in fully democratic, non-military rule, they’ve all got another thing coming.
The military has just won 21 months of rule without further protests and a 21-month space to consolidate its power and take steps to ensure that no really meaningful transition or election will occur.
9
If the agreement holds, the Vatican should investigate it as a possible miracle.
13
Power sharing with the military, who kept Bashir in power, may be a mistake, but it might be the only deal the civilians could get at this time. I, for one, don't trust the military leadership to hand off control to a civilian government. I hope I'm wrong.
It is time to end all civil wars and regime change wars by people of the respective countries. Great for Sudan to be on the track to enduring peace.
1
This seems to be a step in the right direction for Sudan.
My best wishes to the Sudanese people, and, I hope this works out for you.
6