Few peoples in the world have been as dedicated to the cause of democracy as the Sudanese people. Sudan’s pursuit of democracy continues, but stable democratic governance has so far eluded it, particularly due to foreign pressure.
In the latest historical episode of the revolutionary upheaval that overthrew President Omar al-Bashir in 2019, the political transition failed to keep the country on the democratic path.
A bloody war then broke out between the two generals, resulting in chaos and destruction. For the moment, survival is the top priority for the Sudanese people, but once the conflict ends, debates about the country’s governance and political future will once again come to the fore, and what that will look like. There must be a clear vision of what is going on.
Democratic change is essential to solving Sudan’s many problems, but it must meet the needs of the Sudanese people and not be shaped by outside forces. In particular, the United States, which has sought to exert influence in the wake of Bashir’s transition, has not only failed for years to promote democracy in Sudan and its neighboring regions, but has also failed on key indicators of democracy at home.
In recent decades, the United States has promoted understanding of democracy throughout the Global South, including Sudan. American diplomats, think tanks, and NGOs have all pressed foreign governments to hold elections, maintain free speech, and uphold human rights.
This effort yielded little concrete results for two reasons.
First, American democracy itself is in decline. All three pillars of American democracy promotion are in retreat in the United States. Over the past decade, foreign interference, allegations of a “stolen” election, and political turmoil have heightened concerns that elections no longer guarantee an orderly transition of power within the country.
Freedom of speech is also under attack. During the coronavirus pandemic and the ensuing wars in Ukraine and Gaza, many were deplatformed, vilified, and fired for taking positions that did not follow the official narrative. Book bans are on the rise across the United States, as is censorship of critical voices on social media.
The United States also has an uneven human rights record domestically, as reflected in a 2023 United Nations report highlighting that the United States is not complying with many of its obligations under the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. ing. On the international stage, the United States continues to support Israel’s genocide of Palestinian civilians in Gaza, despite mounting evidence that Israel is committing war crimes and possibly genocide.
Second, U.S. democracy promotion has been conditioned and shaped by U.S. economic and political interests. Washington is demanding that countries agree to let the Western-led IMF and World Bank oversee their national economies as part of democratic transitions. It also requires that the foreign policies of countries in the Global South be consistent with their own foreign policies.
However, governments that comply with these demands often do so at the expense of the interests of their own citizens. This goes against the very idea of democracy, which is based on national sovereignty.
Indeed, American expressions of democracy are aimed above all at ensuring American dominance, which is why it would be unwise for countries in the Global South to defer to American discretion.
Sudan’s pursuit of democracy
The parochial democratic model of the United States and the West does not have a good track record in Sudan. Each time this system has been applied during periods of political opening following the overthrow of military regimes, it has unsurprisingly failed to solve Sudan’s difficult problems and has been quickly discarded.
In the 2000s, as Sudan’s second civil war neared its end, U.S. efforts to promote Sudanese democracy intensified. This regional peace process, heavily influenced by the United States, produced the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the al-Bashir government and the rebel Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM). Both countries were under pressure to agree to democratic change in either a united Sudan or its resulting constituents if southern Sudanese chose secession in a referendum.
Despite the US investing huge amounts of political capital in the project, the peace agreement and process served to strengthen the al-Bashir regime.
Over the next decade, the Sudanese regime’s failure to meet the demands of politically and economically marginalized people led to deepening poverty and conflict around Darfur, the Nuba Mountains, south of the Blue Nile, and eastern Sudan.
Sudan’s underdeveloped and distorted markets were unable to meet the needs of the poor even in the core, much less adequately address the economic grievances of the periphery.
The need for the state to play a leading role in overcoming poverty in the country was an important point for many in Khartoum and in opposition elites whose understanding of democracy was primarily limited to replacing the dictators of the day. was not recognized as a priority.
The trade union movement has been suppressed and, rather than addressing the economic grievances of the majority and carrying out the country’s much-needed economic restructuring, a group of professionals interested in political reform are By replacing them, political opposition was weakened.
This goes a long way to explaining the failure of the transition since 2019. The overthrow of al-Bashir in 2019 resulted in the establishment of the interim government of Abdallah Hamdok, which claimed to be a genuine democracy but benefited from the military and structured its economic and foreign policy to meet US demands. And he largely ignored the pleas of the revolutionaries in the streets who took power.
Believing that markets were the key to ending Sudan’s economic crisis, the government pursued IMF austerity measures, which further reduced living standards and led to a loss of public support.
Hamdok’s cabinet was comprised primarily of bureaucrats with a neoliberal worldview and had little concern about Sudan becoming a vassal state of the United States. As a result, the United States successfully pressured Israel to reverse its longstanding refusal to recognize apartheid Israel. It also demanded that Khartoum pay $335 million for terrorist acts allegedly sponsored by al-Bashir’s government in order to lift sanctions that weaken the country.
However, despite these faithful representations, when the military overthrew Hamdok’s government in October 2022, the US government did not come to the rescue. The United States has had no qualms about undermining Sudan, while claiming to support Sudan’s “democratic efforts.” The most pro-American government in Sudan’s history.
As I argue in my book, The Poisoned Chalice of American Democracy: A Study from the Horn of Africa, the biggest obstacle to achieving democracy in Sudan is an elite-controlled government and parliament. It was the opposition party’s limited vision and dedication to constitutional politics that gave rise to Oppose the transformative changes that are needed.
Ironically, the greatest democratic achievements in Sudan’s postcolonial history were not made during a short period of democratic rule, but during the early years of Ja’afar Nimeiri’s dictatorship (1969-85). In the early 1970s, Nimeiri successfully ended Sudan’s first civil war peacefully and granted regional autonomy to southern Sudan.
He promoted efforts to weaken Sudan’s traditional elites and build a Sudanese identity unbound by Arabism or Islam. He promoted increased public control of the economy and a foreign policy of nonalignment.
This period in Sudan’s history is important for Sudanese citizens to consider as they ponder the country’s future.
In addition to discussing how to end the war by dismissing generals, it is vitally important that we consider what kind of democratic path we would like our country to follow, one that is not shaped by American pressure.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.