On Nov 21 Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok (l) agreed a deal with Lt.
Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (r) to end a bloody standoff that has led to
dozens of protester deaths and threatened Sudan’s fragile transition to
democracy.
But the street was not prepared to buy Hamdok’s line. With good
reason. Burhan had initiated the coup just ahead of when he was supposed
to step down as chair of the Sovereign Council, a cumbersome
arrangement between the military and civilian leaders that was supposed
to deliver democracy to Sudan. However, in the more than two years since
the coup against al-Bashir, Burhan had increasingly side-lined Hamdok.
His October seizure of power, though it caught some, including the
Americans, off guard should not have come as a surprise.
Rather, the surprise is that the general has been forced to bring
Hamdok back. That may be in part because the United States, stung by
what they saw as a betrayal
had immediately frozen a US$700 million aid package. Hours before the
coup, the US special envoy to the Horn of Africa, Jeffrey Feltman, had
met with Burhan and Hamdok in Khartoum in an effort to resolve tensions
between the two. He left for Doha thinking a rapprochement of sorts had
been secured. By the time he got to the Qatari capital, the coup was
already underway.
Betrayal was also a word being used in Khartoum on 21 November but
the target was not Burhan. It was Hamdok. Activists expressed disgust
and anger that the now re-instated prime minister was prepared to sit
down with the man who had overthrown him. Already deeply suspicious of
the original power-sharing agreement, they see this new arrangement as
little more than window dressing that allows Burhan to continue to hold
power. Speaking to DW,
Rania Aziz a 36 year-old activist caught the mood of the street
accurately: "We have been very clear in our demands since the revolution
started. Actually, the people have never approved or agreed to the
power-sharing deal." That Hamdok was prepared to sign a deal without
the backing of the civilian coalition that had brought about the
revolution was for her "a setback, even a disgrace."
Burhan may well have under-estimated the power of the street when he
carried out the coup. Protesters, in the face of a brutal crackdown,
continued their defiance. And he had already deeply angered the
Americans. The African Union and the Arab League
had both gone on record as opposing the coup with the former suspending
Sudan’s membership and the latter speaking of its “deep concern.” Still
the general might have sought to brazen out his power seizure had it
not been for two other factors.
The first has to do with a 3 November statement from the so-called “Quad”: Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the US and the UK . The four made it abundantly clear their position:
We endorse the international community’s serious concern with the
situation in Sudan. We call for the full and immediate restoration of
its civilian-led transitional government and institutions. We call upon
all parties to strive for cooperation and unity in reaching this
critical objective. In that vein we encourage the release of all those
detained in connection with recent events and the lifting of the state
of emergency. Violence has no place in the new Sudan, on this point we
encourage an effective dialogue between all parties, and we urge all to
ensure that the peace and security for the people of Sudan is a top
priority.
The Emiratis, concerned about stability in the Horn of Africa where
they have invested considerable diplomatic and financial capital, were
making it abundantly clear that they no longer had Burhan’s back. That
in itself was significant as the UAE had been instrumental
in backing the general in the overthrow of al-Bashir. Nor was Burhan
wise to annoy the Saudis. Like the UAE, the kingdom had invested heavily
in enabling the removal of al-Bashir and financing post-coup Sudan. So,
in addition to angering the Americans, he had lost the support of the
two key regional powers.
And the man he might have expected to back him, Egyptian strongman
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, himself a ruthless authoritarian who has used the
military with impunity to crush all dissent, has remained silent.
In reality, then, Burhan had no option other than to bring Hamdok
back into play. What angers the street is that Hamdok was so willing to
be, in their eyes, party to a charade.
It may be, as he claimed, his attempt to halt further bloodshed. But
the protests have not stopped and Burhan who was supposed to step aside
remains in place. The question is, without the support of his key
backers, and facing the pressure of global condemnation, will the return
of Hamdok be enough to protect him? Or will the general’s hand be
forced either to resort to violence to hold onto power or to accept that
the transition to a democratic Sudan must proceed?