This awareness is leading to an absolute refusal to accept the military as legitimate partners in this transition to democratic rule. There is a high level of awareness, especially among Sudanese youth, of the transitional challenges that created governance vacuums allowing the military to justify seizing control.

Now that the agreement has been signed, there are serious concerns around its implementation as confrontations between civilians and state security actors arise with grassroots movements planning weekly demonstrations. The coup took place just a month before the military was meant to hand over chairmanship of the transitional ruling council to the civilians. It soon became evident that the international community was tone-deaf in its attempt to mediate the political deadlock.īefore 25 October, it was apparent that the ‘Sudanese model’ of a shared civilian-military governing body was flawed and that there were inherent cleavages and directly competing interests. Mediating actors had repeatedly called for a return to the status quo ante, yet Sudanese protesters strongly rejected the military’s role under the slogan ‘No negotiation, No partnership, No compromise’. The African Union, United Nations (UN) and United States, as the most visible mediating actors, had a primary objective of restoring the civilian-military partnership. Hence it was a political agreement devoid of domestic buy-in or support. There was no sense of legitimacy or even transparency regarding the mediation efforts from all parties involved.

They see it as a way of legitimising the coup.įrom the start, there was limited consultative engagement with Sudanese civil society and grassroots movements to determine the objectives of the mediation. It’s not surprising that while the international community heralds this new agreement as a celebration, Sudanese remain doubtful. Without a support base to legitimise and give credibility to this agreement, there is widespread concern and speculation about its durability and how it will be implemented. Protesters are refusing an all too familiar civil-military political arrangement. On 21 November, after a month of mass demonstrations, the military reinstated Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, reversing the coup with the signing of a new transitional agreement.ĭespite this accord, protests have continued rejecting the military’s role in governing Sudan. General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan dissolved the government and the Sovereignty Council, suspended the Constitutional Charter of 2019 and imposed a nationwide state of emergency in an effort to ease tensions between political parties. Sudan’s 25 October coup was a miscalculation on the part of the military.

Shattered union reviews