In the Midst of Sudan’s ongoing political crisis, General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (generally referred to as Hemetti), Deputy Chairman of the Transitional Council and Head of the Rapid Response Forces in Sudan, made a number of significant statements on the 22nd of July. Hemetti stressed the importance of bringing the crisis to an end through a comprehensive dialogue between all parties and holding free and fair elections. His statements suggest that Sudan’s military may have decided to relinquish the reins of power to a civilian government, while maintaining its hold on national security matters.
Hemetti’s statements appear to build on earlier announcements by Abdel Fattah Burhan, Commander- in- Chief of the Sudanese Armed Forces, who also chairs the Transitional Military Council earlier in July, to the effect that the military would withdraw from the ongoing political discussions under the auspices of the African Union, EGAD, and the UN Mission in Sudan UNMIS, thereby allowing civilian parties to reach an agreement and form a technocratic government. Burhan also announced the formation of a military council to oversee Defense and security issues, dismissing the five civilian members of the Transitional Council.
Burhan’s announcement had angered Sudan’s civilian political forces, who described them as destructive to the political process in the country. Political protests continue to sweep Khartoum and other provinces, organized by the Freedom Alliance, the Resistance Committees, and the workers’ unions, who threaten a nation-wide strike. Mediation efforts by UNMIS, the African Union, and EGAD, have so far failed to reach an understanding between the civilian and military factions.
Moreover, Sudan has witnessed increased tribal conflict in several provinces, including the Blue Nile. This has undermined stability in the country, and has spread to other provinces, such as Kesla and Khartoum. Fears are growing that these clashes could grow into a civil war, as the number of dead and wounded reached 109 and 290, respectively. Well over 140,000 people have been internally displaced. In his statements, Hemetti warned these tribal conflicts could lead the country to collapse.
Conflicting political responses
Sudan’s civilian political forces expressed differing stances regarding Hemetti’s statements. The Revolutionary Front was quick to express its approval of the statements, perceiving them to be a means of breaking the current political deadlock, promising to work with all sides to reach stability in Sudan. The Front’s position constitutes an important turning point, as it had previously objected to the military’s withdrawal from UN-sponsored negotiations, arguing there could be no resolution to the crisis without negotiating with the military.
The Justice and Equality Movement, which is part of the Revolutionary Front, expressed their support for Hametti’s message, viewing them, along with Burhan’s stances, as evidence the military is serious about handing over power to civilians. The movement has proposed consultations between the political forces regarding a constitutional framework, defining the responsibilities of the government, and the holding of elections. It also intends to call for a congress on all issues related to transition and proposing a candidate for the position of prime minister.
The Freedom and Change Movement condoned the formation of consultative committees with all political parties and with no exemptions to complete the political consensus on all issues, including the formation of a government and its duties. They also would like to push for choosing a Prime Minister and a government transition program to reach the final stage of elections.
On the other hand, civilian forces opposed to the participation of the military in government, view Hametti’s statements as an attempt to maneuver around the demands of the street regarding overturning the military coup of last October. These forces, especially the Sudanese Professionals Association, argue that the military’s stance was forces by the protests on the streets, and that Hametti was obliged to make such statements to demonstrate the absence of disagreement with Burhan. The Professional Association pointed out that the military has reneged before on its promises to civilians, and therefore these latest statements do not represent a step forward, but a means to circumvent the demands of the revolution.
Political Implications
Hametti’s statements represent his return to the political scene, after spending several weeks in Darfur, away from the political turmoil in Khartoum, and an attempt to reinforce his image as a statesman, keen to maintain the stability and safety of the country. The statements were also meant to signify that he had no aspirations to political power, by reaffirming that the military has withdrawn from the political arena, leaving it to civilians to reach a consensus. Therefore, this appears to be an attempt by Hametti to calm the revolutionary forces, who are adamant the military must relinquish power, and to appear to be acceding to their demands in this respect.
On the other hand, these statements signal a unified stance in the military regarding the future of the political process, as Hametti affirmed that Burhan had consulted him prior to the announcements made in early July. This aimed at ending rumors of a rift in the armed forces, as Burhan made his announcements while Hametti was in Darfur, leading some to conclude he purposefully took advantage of the latter’s absence to affirm his sole control.
Despite the general similarity between Burhan’s and Hemetti’s statements, there are some differences. For example, Hametti stressed the full implementation of the Juba Accords, as well as reform of military and security organs, which were not mentioned in Burhan’s statement. This could indicate an element of political rivalry between the two figures, and Hemetti’s attempt to outshine Burhan.
Both Burhan and Hametti highlighted the ongoing differences between Sudan’s civilian political forces, implying that this is the cause of the ongoing crisis, and that the inability of these forces to reach consensus is the reason the military has not relinquished power. This appears to be an attempt to portray the coup of last October as a step towards correcting political imbalances, not a coup against the democratic process as perceived by Sudan’s civilian political forces.
Moreover, the impact of external pressure on the military to relinquish power, particularly from the US, is clearly reflected in Hametti’s statements. These pressures include the threat of sanctions on anyone impeding the democratic process, as well as calls from the Troika (the US, the UK, and Norway) and the UN and EU, on the army to resolve the crisis. Hametti therefore is keen to deflect these growing pressures and demonstrate the military’s good intentions regarding the handing over of power to the civilians.
In sum, Hametti’s statements, in line with Burhan’s, aim to send a message that it is disagreements among the civilian political forces in Sudan that is the cause of the protracted political crisis. This can be considered a tactical maneuver by the military to deflect escalating domestic and international pressures. The coming period is therefore likely to witness contestation between pro-military civilian political forces, who will seek to capitalize on these latest stances by the military to attempt to form a new government, and the various factions known as the Revolutionary forces, that are vehemently opposed to such maneuvers on the part of the military.