After he disappeared from the scene, who are the winners and losers from Hamdok’s resignation?
Khartoum – The Sudanese, with their various components, woke up – yesterday, Monday – to a new political reality imposed by the absence of the resigned Prime Minister, Dr. Abdullah Hamdok, from the scene after he submitted his resignation, due to the failure of all his efforts to get the country out of the square of the crisis.
Hamdok’s resignation came the day after 3 people were killed in the protests condemning the military takeover of power on October 25, 2021, and after the growing rejection of the agreement signed between him and the army chief, Lieutenant General Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan, on November 21 of the same year.
Sudan is living in a state of worrying political suffocation, the pace of which has been increased by Al-Burhan’s procedures, which has deepened the existing divisions and contributed to widening the area of disagreement with the street, which in the majority goes to call for restoring the democratic path far from political fronts.
Among the several questions left by Hamdok’s departure, a question arises about the losers and those who gain from the absence of the first prime minister after the overthrow of al-Bashir, but putting answers under the same question highlights the great division between the Sudanese as it will appear later.
See up close
We asked Fayez Al-Silik, the former media advisor in Hamdok’s office, a question about the winners and losers of Hamdok’s disappearance from the scene, and he began his speech by emphasizing that his resignation puts the entire Sudanese scene in the eye of the storm.
Al-Silik told Al-Jazeera Net that Hamdok’s resignation left a constitutional vacuum that is difficult to fill soon by naming an agreed alternative, and that it would increase the grip of power and prolong the confrontation between it and the leaders of the protests.
Returning to the distribution of points between the various components, Al-Silik believes that the military component is the biggest loser in the absence of Hamdok, as he is the most consensual figure who believes in the partnership formula between the civil and military components, whether before or after October 25, 2021.
With regard to the Forces of Freedom and Change (the Central Council), Al-Silik believes that their view of resignation is a gain and a loss from the viewpoint of their components of the scene.
He continues that the National Umma Party may be considered a loser due to the emerging trends to renew the partnership between the civil and military components through proposed and known initiatives.
On the other hand, it can be said that components within the coalition, such as the Unionist Gathering, the Sudanese Congress Parties and the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party, have won, because they support the mobile forces in the street to call for the removal of the military component from power.
Al-Silik evaluated the protest movement among the most prominent winners from Hamdok’s resignation, after one of the protesters’ main goals was achieved by tearing up the political agreement signed between Hamdok and Al-Burhan, which returns the confrontation to the direct formula between the street and the military.
“The military component is the biggest loser from Hamdok’s resignation,” the professor of political science and international relations, Dr. Ahmed Sabah al-Khair, began his answer to Al Jazeera.net’s question about the winners and losers from Hamdok’s resignation.
Good morning justified his answer because the military component, in addition to the popular and political pressures to which it is exposed, is confronted with international complications that may return the military to the square before the November 21 agreement, after which they obtained legitimacy and many countries and institutions decided to deal with them, after classifying what happened Previously on October 25 it was a full-fledged military coup.
Regarding the Forces of Freedom and Change (the National Pact), Sabah Al-Khair believes that they are among the people of customs, and their points are divided between profit and loss after the resignation of the Prime Minister.
In terms of loss, he says that the Juba Peace Agreement signed with the armed movements in October 2020 will lack much of the support that Hamdok was providing due to his relations with international donors and international financing institutions.
With regard to profits, it is believed that the Charter group got rid of one of its most prominent opponents who see the necessity of forming the government according to criteria and principles, even if this is done at the expense of the shares and shares of the forces that signed the peace.
Good morning describes the protest movement in the street as the most profitable entity from Hamdok’s exit from the scene in a way that the government loses its legitimacy and increases the momentum of escalation and protests.
In turn, political analyst Haider Al-Makashfi believes that the military, the forces loyal to them, and supporters of the regime of ousted President Al-Bashir are all profitable from Hamdok’s resignation.
In his speech to Al-Jazeera Net, Al-Makashfi stresses that Hamdok did not anticipate anything to solve the political crisis, but he did not find help from the street nor the political forces to develop his agreement with Al-Burhan in favor of the civil democratic path.
He recalled that the man had taken practical steps to repeal a number of Al-Burhan’s decisions, and his categorical rejection of the repressions directed against peaceful protesters.
Al-Makashfi added that Hamdok’s absence returns full powers to the military, who, according to his opinion, are expected to start establishing a totalitarian state with the support of the forces of apostasy against democracy, and this emerged in restoring immunities and broad powers to the security services.
And he concludes that the biggest loser from Hamdok’s resignation is the country by losing one of its winning horses in the field of civil transformation, and the Sudanese revolution, which is expected to be confronted with complete repression during the next stage after the absence of Hamdok, who represented an isthmus that prevented the abuse of power over the protest movement in the street.