As the world sinks deeper into a global recession of democracy, the prevailing assumption is that popular aspirations for freedom have had their day. The Arab Spring has come and gone, leaving behind crushed hopes, failed states, and more brutal autocracies (along with the single but challenged success story of Tunisia). The “Second Liberation” that brought a new burst of democracy in Africa in the 1990s has lost steam as autocrats feel increasingly emboldened to manipulate elections, ravage opponents, and loot their societies. With the authoritarian juggernauts of China and Russia on the rise globally—and clearly resurgent in these two regions—the democratic West seems no longer to be a model, or in a position to influence other countries’ political future.
But events in Sudan belie these assumptions. Since mid-December, when Sudanese women and men first took to the streets outside Khartoum to protest skyrocketing prices and shortages of basic food items, an extraordinary cross-section of Sudanese civil society has pressed demands not only for economic justice but for an to end thirty years of brutally repressive—and economically ruinous—rule by Omar Bashir’s regime. Women have remained defiantly in the forefront of these protests, but the movement encompasses a broad coalition of Sudan’s disparate opposition parties, trade unions, youth movements, and civil society organizations. Crucially, middle-class professionals who stayed on the sidelines of previous uprisings have played a coordinating role in the movement, under the banner of the Sudan Professionals Association. This disciplined civic mobilization—which has drawn hundreds of thousands of Sudanese into the streets over the past five months— builds upon Sudan’s traditions of community engagement and the compassionate responses of its people to local crises, including the horror of violent repression in Darfur over the past sixteen years.
On April 11, the protests achieved what many thought to be impossible when Sudan’s military removed Omar Bashir from power in an effort to end the unrest. The 75-year-old Bashir, whose nearly three decades in power spanned nearly half of Sudan’s total history as an independent country, has faced a decade-old indictment by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. On Monday, Sudan’s prosecutor, who had already interrogated Bashir on charges of money laundering and financing terrorism, charged him with “inciting and participating” in the killing of protestors who rose up peacefully to demand his removal.
However, Sudan’s army, which had long backed Bashir and now rules through a ten-member Transitional Military Council (TMC), has been in no hurry to surrender power. It insists on controlling the transition and preserving Islamic Sharia law, and under its transitional rule state violence has continued. On Wednesday, security officials opened fire on demonstrators, and the military suspended talks over plan for transition to democratic rule. Since the demonstrations began last December civic groups estimate that over 90 protestors have been killed (including several this week). Yet the protesting public has remained not only courageously defiant but also committed to non-violence. Massive numbers of demonstrators are still peacefully camping out in front of the military headquarters demanding an immediate transition to civilian rule.
The leaders of Sudan’s democracy movement know that this may be the best opportunity for freedom in their lifetime. They have been realistic about the challenges and risks they face and careful and deliberate in their approach. They expected brutal blowback, and they knew that they had to be ready to communicate internally to avoid it as far as possible, to mobilize international support, to hold out for more than a few days in support of their bottom line—a completely civilian-led transition to democracy—and to be prepared to participate in such a transition effectively.
Glad to be rid of one of the world’s most murderous and irresponsible rulers, the United States is aligning itself with the forces of democratic change. In a May 8 phone call with TMC Chairman General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan “expressed support for the Sudanese people’s aspirations for a free, democratic and prosperous future” and “urged the TMC to move expeditiously toward a civilian-led interim government.” Sullivan pressed Sudan’s military leaders to reach agreement with the protestors’ Alliance for Freedom and Change, based on the will of the Sudanese people. Important official messages of support for the safety and aspirations of Sudan’s democracy movement have come as well from the African Union, the UK, Canada, Norway and others.
After at least five more protesters were killed in Khartoum this week, the chief U.S. diplomat in Khartoum, Chargé d’Affaires Steven Koutsis, called out Sudan’s military leaders rather than the disgruntled “saboteurs” that the military sought to blame. With pressure mounting, the TMC announced on Wednesday that it had reached agreement with the civilian democracy alliance on a three-year transition to democratic elections. Democracy leaders had sought a four-year transition managed by a fully civilian-led interim government to ensure effective preparation; the TMC sought a two-year transition with a military-majority in the interim government executive branch. Reportedly, the two sides reached agreement that the civilian alliance would have two-thirds of the 300 seats on an interim legislative council. Alliance members are also expected to appoint the interim cabinet – and they have a roster of skilled and credible candidates in mind. But that tentative agreement now hangs in suspension as a result of the TMC’s latest maneuver.
U.S. lawmakers have just sent a clear, bipartisan message urging U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin to take strong steps to strengthen international support for a rapid transfer of power in Sudan to a civilian-led transitional government, and to help stop the TMC’s clear threats to democracy. Some 92 U.S. lawmakers from both the House and Senate called upon Pompeo and Mnuchin to “use all mechanisms and leverage to facilitate, as quickly as possible, an inclusive civilian-led transition to democratic governance.” The powerful letter outlines specific steps they would like the administration to take.
While the prospect of a civilian-led legislature and cabinet in Sudan represents remarkable progress on the path to democratic governance in Sudan, unfortunately, it is still far from clear that the military is prepared to allow civilian forces to lead the transitional process. Both sides are still fighting for the majority of positions on the proposed 11-member sovereign council that is to be the interim executive authority. Although the TMC has promised an agreement that meets popular aspirations, they have raised new barriers to agreement, and the pro-democracy forces remain in the streets, determined to ensure civilian-led change is assured. They demand, for example, that Mohamed Hamdan “Hemeti” Dagolo, who ran the murderous janjaweed militias in Darfur, Sudan, cannot be allowed to have any role in the transition to democracy.
Sudan is on a knife’s edge. What happens in the coming days and weeks could shape the political future of its 40 million people for years to come. Sudan’s indefatigable democracy movement has moved the country farther and faster towards a real transition to civilian-led democracy than anyone would have predicted even three months ago. But Sudan’s brave democratic forces need help. The United States and its G7 allies (Canada, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, and the EU) must keep the pressure on the generals in Khartoum and continue to press publicly for a civilian-led transition, at all levels of the interim government, including the sovereign council. Together, they could make a difference at this crucial moment by committing to an explicit, multi-year package of bilateral and multilateral support (both financial and political) for Sudan’s transition to democratic governance—provided that the military allows a real transition. To drive the latter point home, the G7 democracies should make clear to the generals that their own personal interests could be placed at risk through targeted sanctions if they seek to obstruct the transition and use violence against peaceful protestors.
What U.S. and Europe should not stand for is some version of Myanmar or Pakistan—where the military retains the decisive power behind a façade of very partial elected civilian authority. Neither should the world’s leading democracies tolerate a replay of the Egyptian debacle, where the military subverts the transitional process and then stages a coup to “rescue” the country from “chaos.”
Coming summits provide an opportunity for the high-profile launch of multilateral initiatives to support a civilian-led transition to democracy in Sudan. When the G7 leaders meet in France in late August, they should establish a Friends of Sudan Group and commit to a multilateral conference (with the World Bank, African Development Bank, IMF, UN and other national and multilateral actors) to engage a civilian-led Sudanese interim government on how best to assist the political transition and revive Sudan’s ravaged economy. While the more diverse G20 group of countries may be a heavier lift, the U.S. and its allies can take advantage of the late June Summit in Osaka to urge support from others, and to warn against malign international interference to subvert Sudan’s transition.
There is much more at stake than the fate of a strategic and long-suffering but resilient country. At this dispiriting moment of a deepening global recession of democracy, Sudan is a rare but clear example of the irrepressibility of human aspirations for freedom and dignity. Even after decades of authoritarian repression and isolation from the West, Sudan’s people continued dreaming of freedom, and they also prepared themselves for the moment when they could use their skills, creativity and networks of support to create a tipping point in favor of democratic change. Pro-democracy protestors have made impressive use of social media tools that were not widely available even a decade ago, but they have also been rigorous, inclusive and realistic. They have made effective use of non-violent civic activism, creative communication and organizing, policy development and organized governance approaches.
These tools and tactics of democratic change are not unique to Sudan. They are quietly being promoted and imparted to young leaders through international civic efforts like the African Middle Eastern Leadership Project (AMEL), with which we are all associated. AMEL also reflects a tenacious popular belief—which autocrats in the two regions have tried but failed to extinguish—that democracy and the rule of law represent a better way to govern. For the people of Africa and the Middle East, well-governed democracies offer a better path to peace, prosperity, and individual dignity. And for the United States and its allies, they offer the prospect of sustainable alliances based on shared values and not a cynical convergence of short-term interests.
If a country that had sunk as deeply into tyranny as Sudan could negotiate a peaceful transition to democracy, then so can many others of the world’s entrenched autocracies. A transitional drama is also unfolding nearby in Ethiopia, and the beleaguered people of Venezuela continue to protest peacefully for democracy on a similarly massive scale. If Sudan is able to negotiate a genuine democratic transition, it will give hope and inspiration to people everywhere struggling for freedom—at a time when the world very much needs a victory for democracy.
