Editor's note: Justin Lynch is a researcher and analyst based in Washington, DC. He is co-author of the book “Unfinished democracy in Sudan” The opinions expressed here are his own. Read more opinions on CNN.
CNN
—
Four years ago, almost to this day, the people of Sudan celebrated a revolution following the overthrow of longtime dictator Omar al-Bashir. Now the East African country faces probability of complete collapse similar to the chaos we see today in Yemen or Libya.
Rival military factions began fighting each other in the capital Khartoum on Saturday. Both sides fought for control of the nation's airports, bases and military installations. Violence quickly spilled onto the streets and across the country.
Some 45 million Sudanese are effectively hostages, unable to leave their homes for fear of being killed in the crossfire. At least 180 people died in battle, including three World Food Program humanitarian workers.
The conflict pits two bitter rivals against each other and their powerful armed forces. On one side is the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. On the other side is the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemeti.
There is no good side in this conflict. Both are accused of a long list of human rights violations.
How did Sudan go from overthrowing oppressive rule and establishing a fledgling democracy a few years ago to teetering on the brink of state collapse?
April 11, 2019 Sudan's longtime dictator Bashir was overthrown. The reason for Bashir's ouster was months of protests led by Sudanese trade unions, which provoked a military coup by the SAF and RSF. Both Burhan and Hemeti joined forces to oust their former boss.
It was a moment of hope because there was hope for democracy. I remember walking through the sit-in, a giant freedom carnival in the center of Khartoum that was blocked by protesters demanding change. It was electric.
But social movements such as the Sudanese Professionals Association (SPA), the union behind the protests, often struggle to turn the momentum of their demonstrations into real political power.
The reason for this is partly structural. Social movements such as SPA are often based on grassroots activism. A dictator can arrest one or two leaders of an organization, but not the entire country.
However, once a dictator is overthrown, these types of social movements often have difficulty building the leadership hierarchy needed during political negotiations. Like many other movements, protesters in Sudan have failed to translate mobilization into political power.
Civilian leaders entered into negotiations with the military about the country's future shortly after Bashir's fall in April 2019. Because of these leadership problems, pro-democracy forces struggled to negotiate with the disciplined military.
Any momentum that pro-democracy supporters had during the negotiations was exhausted in June 2019 when RSF soldiers forcibly dispersed sit-in strike. More than 100 people died.
After the June massacre and problems with the leadership, transitional constitution was signed in August 2019, which gave the SAF and RSF the majority of power in Sudan. Burhan was the head of state, and Hemeti held a high political position. Elections were promised in 2022, but few believed they would actually take place.
The transition period began in August 2019 and I interviewed Abdullah Hamdokcivilian prime minister, several times for a book I co-wrote about the Sudanese revolution. The way the constitution was written meant that Hamdok had limited power as prime minister. Burhan was the head of state and wanted to retain the powers of the SAF.
Hamdok often told me that revolutions happen in cycles. Bashir's ouster in 2019 was the culmination of the revolution, and he saw his task as introducing as many reforms as possible before the tide of counter-revolution swept him away.
Hamdok found that the legacy of 30 years of dictatorship meant that Sudan's political and economic models had fallen into disarray. But Burhan and Hemeti blocked the big reforms that Hamdok wanted to implement.
Outside Khartoum, violence grew. In parts of Sudan, such as Darfur, there has been a new round of conflict between ethnic groups, orchestrated by RSF troops. More than 430,000 people were moved due to the conflict in Sudan, mainly in Darfur.
The soldiers did not hide the atrocities they committed against civilians. I remember having tea with an RSF-affiliated soldier at his home in Darfur as he explained why he had recently participated in the burning of a village belonging to another ethnic group.
The soldier's argument was that a member of his tribe had been killed in a skirmish, so the RSF took revenge by setting fire to the village in which they lived 30,000 people. At least 163 people died.
Tensions grew between the SAF and the RSF. Burhan considered Hemeti and his RSF forces to be undisciplined usurpers from Darfur. Hemeti, on the other hand, believed that it was time for Darfur to lead Sudan.
Hamdok was on the verge of starting to rebuild the economy when Burhan and the SAF intervened. As we wrote in Sudan's Unfinished Democracy, the potential success of a civilian government was too great for Burhan. In October 2021 Hamdok was removed. in a military coup.
Since the October 2021 coup, the United States and the United Nations have put forward the worst version of a transitional constitution for Sudan. They were arguing that this is the best way to establish democracy.
The idea was to restart the transition period, but I and many others argued that this was short-sighted and won't work. A return to a government led by Burhan was clearly I'm not going to spend in democracy. If the plan ended in a coup the first time, why did it work the second time?
Some activists ended their partnership with the United States and began to view the UN mission as obstacle to democracy because of this policy. I felt sorry when I spoke with the best American and foreign diplomats who also understood that international politics in Sudan would not work. They saw the shortcomings, but felt powerless to express disagreement and were forced to carry out decisions made many levels above them.
The outbreak of clashes this weekend was preceded by controversial part international policy, which tried to unite SAF and RBG. The idea was to create a unified army, but neither Hemeti nor Burhan wanted to give up the power they had accumulated.
The plan to unify the armed forces did not work in such situations. It was repetition the 2013 and 2016 unification processes that took place in South Sudan and had equally bloody results. Instead, the pressure escalated the tense relationship between Burhan and Hemeti.
It is easy to look at the recent history of “revolutions” in countries such as Myanmar, Tunisia, Egypt and Sudan and conclude that they ultimately backfired. I don't agree. From Sudanese activists, I learned that the political destiny of a nation is an active battle.
We can one day hope that Sudan will see dreams of democracy come true. But now the Sudanese people are simply hoping to survive this day.
The lesson from Sudan is that revolution is only the beginning of change, not the end.
