Sudanese oppositions’ unity and Sadiq al-Mahdi’s soft landing

[Elisabeth Janaina]

Sudanese oppositions’ unity and Sadiq al-Mahdi’s soft landing

Article
Comments (0)

email Email
print Print
pdfSave
separation
increase
decrease
separation
separation

By Dr. El-tahir El-faki

In the year 2011, the swift events in the Arab world ‘called the Arab
Spring’ took the international community by surprise. The incidents
drew urgent security arrangements to safeguard against possible or
unforeseen political turns in Sudan. Distinction between organized
civil disobedience or spontaneous demonstrations as processes and
mechanisms of political change must be differentiated from their
consequences as legitimate dynamics of violent uprising, chaos,
insurgency and collapse of the state. For a particular political force
to claim monopoly of the process is more likely to end up alone
bearing the consequences of overthrowing the National Congress Party
(NCP). Accordingly a united forum is necessary to harmonize the
process, control and minimize the consequences.

The principle at the bottom of any political opposition is to endorse
clear political objectives. The success or failure is evaluated in
terms of the opportunities and methods available or created to achieve
harmony and leadership. The objectives - obvious principles for the
Sudanese opposition groups - remain outstanding. The Sudan Call forces
over the last year expressed a desire to observe that principle, alas
without success. The two main reasons for the disappointment are the
lack of political understanding and the ideological mistrusts between
the groups. The political understanding is the failure to
differentiate between opposing the NCP as a corrupt political body or
against the Islamic ideology shielding it.

The oppositions have yet to realise that their incapability to unite,
select a leader or adopt a coherent policy is a strong factor for the
NCP to survive. The continuous failure to achieve despite the pace set
by the urgency of the political stratum frustrated the national and
the international communities. This situation allowed the NCP to
endorse its National Dialogue and brandish non-contributories to lack
national sentiments and demoralise the Sudanese people.

So far, reaching agreement among Sudanese opposition factions remains
unlikely, even though a prerequisite to national and international
support for positive action in the country. Bellicose declarations by
some members of the oppositions suggest that they prioritize strategic
counter political rivalries than focussing on comprehensible policies
against the NCP.

The most apparent example was the rift of the Sudanese Revolutionary
Front (SRF) in October 2015 when the SPLA/N at the end of its term
refused to hand over the leadership to the successor Justice and
Equality Movement (JEM). The incident was blatant abrogation and
arrogant retraction of its commitment to democratic transference of
power between the members of the group. Despite intervention by
leading national and international figures to save the alliance the
SPLM/N insisted to cling to power and dashed all hopes of unity. The
dispute sent the coalition into disrepute and seriously damaged its
image. The split exposed a fragile hope of creating an intelligible
political caretaker for peaceful or military transformation in a
country struggling to build new political order. The unexpected schism
disappointed the wider Sudanese people and frustrated the
international community that had put much hopes on the group to
venerate democratic values against narrow ideological or political
differences. Splintered opportunist political and rebel groups have
been encouraged by the hiatus to join the NCP banner for financial or
political proceeds. The NCP snatched the chance to validate that the
SRF is no better an alternative and electrified its propaganda
machinery to downgrade the as-yet limited but rising threat it
signified.

While it is morally inexplicable to disagree with the fairness of the
Sudanese opposition’s stance on regime change; the methods that have
been pursued so far failed to bring the NCP down. And to continue with
the same methodology is more likely to extend the lifespan of the
regime. The opposition forces need a strong will to unite on major
collective political compromise under one leadership. All sides must
accept the fact that if there are no compromises there will be no
change. The compromise has two sides. Firstly acknowledgement of
genuine threats to own political or military survival and time is not
on one’s side and assurances are within a united front. Secondly every
member of the front insures attainment of its objectives through the
democratic process preserved within the unity.

The NCP regime at the moment is particularly weak, unstable and facing
significant domestic and international difficulties. At the same time
and without any doubt is potentially brutal if endangered. A
successful creation of nominated leadership will undoubtedly threat
Bashir’s authority and credit peaceful transition to democracy for the
country. A united front brushes away fears of the most negative and
dreadful consequences that overshadow the ousting of Bashir and
safeguard state institutions without which the country would descend
into chaos. Bashir has already orchestrated that the nation will
shrink into tribal, sectarian loyalties and allegiances if he is
overthrown. His reliance on the tribal Rapid Support Forces (RSF) for
protection is the example. In a workshop in Khartoum in August 2016,
the chief of military staff warned that the Sudanese army has become a
nexus for tribal influence. In this sense and in the absence of a
coherent opposition and no matter how appealing supplication for
political change may be the country will descend into an abyss that’s
very hard for successors to salvage. And from past experience Bashir
is not concerned with preservation of Sudan’s integrity.

Here, we have to credit Imam Sadiq Al-mahdi for resisting calls to
resort to arms or take to the streets in direct confrontation with the
NCP. His approach for continuing to seek peaceful resolution despite
personal pains, insults and sufferings inflicted at the hands of the
Bashir reflects his outstanding character as a patriotic leader.

Bashir has already been in power for 27 years and would not depart
peacefully as his grip is too herculean and burly. A peaceful
democratic transfer of power is a dream of all freedom loving
Sudanese. It is likewise for the opposition parties to realize the
danger for the future of Sudan is not the NCP alone. A weaker and
incoherent opposition in waiting or successor is disastrous.
Collateral scuffles for power among the groups are recipes for
internal instability and probable civil war. This issue dreads those
with national vision and the international community about an unstable
future Sudan. The message for the NCP is clear. Because the opposition
parties lack the stomach to unite under a leader that situation will
not be for long.

While we utterly believe that the ultimate remedy for Sudan’s ills is
regime change and the NCP’s institutions entirely dismantled we
acknowledge what Imam Sadig Al-mahdi has been calling for ‘Soft
Landing’. This is not implausible. The regime is already weak and
nationally unpopular. And will be even more unpopular as the
corruption and the economic collapse gets worse. In the meantime, the
Sudanese opposition parties must ensure that the NCP shouldn’t be
allowed to portray itself as the only credible factor for a stable
Sudan. The adoption of the Soft Landing policy pulls the rug off the
NCP’s feet and demonstrates that the opposition forces care for the
stability of the country.

More expected, the NCP supporters will conclude that their Islamic
rule have survived for 27 years on irreconcilable and defying policies
to internal and external pressures and will blatantly continue to do
so without any need for compromise.

The proposals of uniting the opposition must aim at addressing the
many contradictions of the past experiences. These contradictions are
the products of failed political and ideological rivalries plaguing
the country for nearly three decades of corrupt Islamists political
hegemony. The response to these contradictions has been security-led.
The spiraling spending on security invited corruption and skewed
society around military patronage to maintain supremacy in the face of
economic, political pressures and protracted revolts.

Bashir recently faced real insecurity when the youths used social
media in their bids for mobilizing civil disobediences against hiking
commodity prices. Nervous and habituated to coercion, NCP stretched
its security muscles by closing daily newspapers and arresting members
of the oppositions. At his heights Bashir called upon opponents to
come out and face him in the streets if they were to overthrow his
regime.

Now calls to unite all the Sudanese opposition groups is paramount and
welcome process if sincerely espoused. Alliance or unity inspires
widespread optimism where the factions set examples of compromises and
accept democratic majesty before calling others to do so.

The Sudanese people are longing for unity of the political and
military forces against Bashir but it is extremely difficult to trust
those whose courses of actions led to the split of the opposition.

The author is the Chairman of JEM Legislative Assembly. He is
reachable at tahire...@gmail.com. This is his personal opinion and
it does not officially represent the voice of JEM