A political agreement returns Hamdok to the government.. Will Sudan return to before October 25?

Khartoum- Today, Sunday, the presidential palace in the center of the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, witnessed the signing of the political agreement between the head of the Sovereign Council, Lieutenant-General Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan and Abdullah Hamdok, who returned as prime minister again after canceling the decision to dismiss him.

All this and the roads surrounding the palace crowded with protesters against the October 25 decisions as they demanded the return of civilian rule, raising slogans “no negotiation,” “no partnership,” and “no legitimacy for military rule.”

The comprehensive national initiative, which was signed by parties from the political and social forces, announced the signing of the political agreement between the two parties early today, after Khartoum witnessed continuous protests for nearly a month, during which 40 people were killed and dozens were wounded since Al-Burhan declared a state of emergency and dissolved the Sovereignty Councils. and ministers.

Opinions differed about the timing of these steps, which preempted a mass movement today, Sunday, called by the Resistance Committees, the Sudanese Professionals Association, and the Forces for Freedom and Change-Central Council, which they called the “November 21 Million”.

High demands

Despite the near-unanimity on the importance of Hamdok’s return to the prime ministership, a large segment of those rejecting Al-Burhan’s procedures raised the ceiling of their demands that there be no partnership, negotiation, or dialogue with the military. And still, large numbers of them continue to protest in the streets of the capital, rejecting the agreement.

In a press statement today, the Forces of Freedom and Change affirmed their adherence to their position that there is no negotiation, partnership, or legitimacy with those they describe as putschists, and demanded that the leaders of the “coup” be brought to the fair courts, stressing that peaceful protests should proceed to overthrow the existing authority.

Since its announcement, Al-Burhan’s decisions have faced internal rejection and extensive external pressure, which hindered its ability to proceed with the procedures for completing the institutions of governance and appointing a government headed by a national competence after one week, according to the army commander’s announcement in his first statement in which he dissolved the government of Hamdok and the former Sovereign Council.

Prior to the announcement of the new national initiative, the European Union ambassadors expressed their readiness to support dialogue to find a political settlement, and US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken stressed during his African tour the importance of Hamdok’s return to head the government in Sudan.

Regarding the most prominent features of the political agreement signed between Al-Burhan and Hamdok today, political analyst Adel Abdel Halim tells Al-Jazeera Net that the most prominent observation is its foundation on the measures taken by the first in his capacity as army chief, according to which the second was placed under house arrest, before this restriction was lifted and received in the presidential palace free at liberty , which means acknowledgment of these actions.

He added that the agreement, whose terms talked about activating the partnership and working together to complete the tasks of the transitional period, and the formation of a national government of technocrats, made the Sovereign Council a supervisor of the executive performance.

interactions and situations

Social media platforms continued their interaction after the signing of the political agreement, and while many expressed their disappointment with the step taken by Hamdok, who were pinning high hopes on him in confronting what they describe as a military coup, activist Jibril Amin wrote on his Facebook page that the problem is not Hamdok’s return, but rather lies In the presence of Al-Burhan and his deputy in the presidency of the Sovereign Council, Lieutenant-General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo “Hemedti” and the former President Omar al-Bashir’s security committee in the political arena. “It is not important who comes, but who goes,” he added.

Qusay Harour, director of the National Center for Research and Consultations in Hamdok’s government, wrote on his page, “Whether the coup is taking its last breath or not, this does not answer the aspirations of the great revolution: freedom, peace, justice and development.”

As for journalist Faisal Hazrat, he criticized the National Initiative for the lack of clarity in its principles on transition, civil governance, justice, the rule of law, and the independence of state institutions, he said.

For her part, Zahra Haidar, director of the Wai Association, said in an interview with Al Jazeera Net, that the steadfastness of the street is what created the present scene, noting that the prevailing trend before the November 17 demonstrations was to choose an alternative to Hamdok to head the government, but the anger and popular alignment led to ” The coup camp retreated and the door to concessions opened.

Zahra believes that the ceiling of demands exceeded the return of Hamdok to the presidency with a non-partisan government, including the movements that signed the Juba Peace Agreement only, and that the talk now is that this coincided with handing over the presidency of the Transitional Sovereignty Council to civilians and then retribution for the blood of the dead.

The former head of the Committee of Representatives of Specialist Doctors, Dr. Ahmed Al-Abwabi, believes that the national initiative is flawed in several ways, because it reduced the issue to the return of Hamdok as prime minister.

He told Al Jazeera Net that this does not add to the political situation new, as “Hamdouk was in this position before the coup and the crisis existed.”

He added that the release of political detainees is a natural, not an acquired right. Al-Bawabi considered that what is happening, compared to the price paid by the youth, is “a cheap sale of the forces of the revolution, enabling the coup and authorizing its structural changes in power.”

“We are facing a concession that would have been better and less expensive for Hamdok to accept from the beginning the dictates of the military and blackmail the founding platform and not cost the country this price in blood, tears and betrayal,” he said.

external pressures

As for the professor of political science at Al-Zaim Al-Azhari University, Dr. Fatima Al-Aqib, she told Al Jazeera Net that Hamdok’s return has nothing to do with any internal initiative, and she argued that the international community does not accept military coups and exerted great pressure, so it was necessary to return to the democratic transitional path.

Fatima Al-Aqib warned not to neglect the American satisfaction with the military component, even if it seemed to the beholder otherwise, she said. She added that the American harmony with the military component is present in accordance with international interests, noting that this is what explains Hamdok’s return and not the national initiatives.

She wondered about Hamdok’s ability to lead the government, especially with the broad public’s rejection of the military component, according to her.

Hamdok – who has been placed under house arrest by the authorities since Al-Burhan announced the dissolution of the government – had set conditions for his return to the premiership, calling for recognition that what had happened was a military coup, the release of detainees and a return to before the October 25 decisions.

The stream of national and international initiatives to re-track the transitional process did not stop, led by the efforts of the head of the United Nations Mission for Sudan, the US envoy for the Horn of Africa and the League of Arab States.

The issue of eastern Sudan

On the other hand, the issue of eastern Sudan was included in the text of the agreement without specifying how to solve it, leaving it to the people of the East to “satisfy” them.

The leader of the Beja conference and the former minister in the Red Sea state, Abdullah Kanna, told Al Jazeera Net that the agreement laid out a road map to address the political crisis, “but it did not refer to our main demand, which is to cancel the eastern path.”

He made it clear that any participation of the people of the East in the governance structure will only take place by canceling the Middle East peace track signed within the Juba Agreement in October 2020 and finding a new platform on which to be agreed upon.

Kanna said that the Asmara Agreement, which was signed by the Beja Conference with the government of Omar al-Bashir in 2006, could amend its provisions and accommodate the agreed upon issues of the East.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *