When Albert Einstein had commented rather adamantly, ‘God does not throw dice,’ he was referring to the belief that the laws of the universe tend to be deterministic, without probabilistic, contingent happenings and free will messing with the forces of physics. While the jury is out on this particular question in physics, can the same be said for states? God may not throw dice, but individuals and nations do, and contingent forces and random actions end up shaping the destiny of nations for years to come and setting them on different courses.
In 2021, Luxembourg’s GDP per capita was $133,590. Compare that to Sudan’s GDP per capita of $751.82. Today, the Scandinavian states have the world’s best standards of living; the UK is known for the strength of its democratic institutions, the US for its innovation driven economy and influence in the international order, while, Sudan is in the news for different reasons altogether - embroiled in a bloody civil war.
Comparative cases like these intrigue students of political science, for drawing counterfactuals is our bread and butter. What if this particular event had not happened at this point in history? What if national elites had done things differently? It is both saddening and intellectually intriguing to wonder how the war being fought on the streets of Sudan today would determine the course of its future in the upcoming decades.
When the Arab Spring uprisings began in 2011 and raged from one country to another in the MENA region, the world expected that ultimately, democratic institutions and norms would prevail, a fresh start from the repressive, authoritarian practices of the region’s erstwhile rulers. The youth of these countries were tired of systems facilitating patronage, corruption, crony capitalism, and inefficiency. Young people wanted change, itself a slogan so often misused for political ends. But the call for change was totemic, rather magical here, and spread from one country to another like blocks of dominoes toppling one after another. While change evaded Sudan for a long time since, in 2019, there was a sliver of hope when protestors forced the long-time autocrat, Omar al Bashir, out of power.
Sudan was finally ready for a democratic transition; the world exclaimed with excitement. However, today’s Sudan is bleary-eyed, war-torn, and bloodied, a victim ravaged by its own kin fighting amongst themselves. At the heart of the conflict are two generals, wielding enough medals on their uniforms to inspire awe, yet both engrossed in a power struggle, vying for control of the reins of government and both unwilling to comprise, as compromise here implies political suicide and a lifetime of subservience to the other.
The fighting erupted in Sudan on April 15th following months of tension between forces led by Sudan’s military leader and de-facto ruler since a coup in 2019, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the Commander of the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), Mohamad Hamdan Dagalo. It is to be noted that Dagalo’s RSF emerged out of the Janjaweed militia which was involved in a genocide in Darfur in the mid-2000s on Bashir’s behest. A power-sharing agreement with civilians, who had led the protests against Bashir’s government, was supposed to give way to a democratic government but was interrupted by a coup in October 2021.
At the heart of the present conflict is the civilian demand for oversight of the military forces and amalgamation of the RSF into the regular armed forces. The Sudanese people also demand the handover of major military assets in agriculture, trade and other industries, a major source of power for the army. Another great source of contention are the allegations of war crimes by the military and its allies in the conflict in Darfur in the 2000s and the killing of pro-democracy protesters in June 2019 - the public demands justice.
Talks for ironing out the details of power-sharing arrangements between the two generals resulted in violent skirmishes and heavy firing, as there were disagreements about the hierarchical distribution of power. The ousted President Omar al-Bashir had led Sudan for about three decades and his reign ended amidst popular protests about rising bread prices.
As the two factions fight for power, as of now, they have agreed to the extension of a ceasefire, which has enabled foreign countries to evacuate their citizens safely. The UN Secretary General’s Representative for Sudan confirmed that there had been a ceasefire in some parts, however, sporadic fighting and relocation of troops was still observed. There have been shortages of basic amenities like food, medication and water and people have been fleeing to the Egyptian border to escape the violence that has the potential to wipe out entire generations of families.
At the very centre of the conflict are civilians, collateral damage in this war, if not dead by bullets, then the quality of their lives eviscerated by hunger and disease. While foreign countries flew their diplomatic staff out of the country within hours, what to say about these helpless Sudanese nationals supposed to be owned and protected by their state, which is itself a victim of the actions and desires of two men and their lust for power. They had looked up to these generals for hope of change; change did come but in the form of a bloodbath. In Khartoum, the RSF is known to have a slight upper hand, whereas the army has greater firepower.
Residential areas are now a battleground, as the RSF is seen occupying residential areas and daring the army to raze the country’s capital. International powers have picked sides, as happens opportunely during times of such internal strife. Egypt is known to ‘unofficially’ support the army, while the UAE, Russia’s Wagner mercenary group, and other regional militias are siding with the RSF.
The former ruler Bashir had, during his 30-year rule, operated on a policy of divide and rule, creating and amplifying divisions between ethnic groups, which then ended up creating militias. With his departure, there has been a security vacuum, and these various militias now scramble for power and influence. The ethnic undertones are quite worrisome and could lead to the subjugation of entire ethnicities if not stopped. One could argue that the conflict was a long time coming, as the partition of the Indian subcontinent or Pakistan’s breaking into two in 1971 on ethnic grounds shows how actions of a few individuals to advance their political interests can activate dormant ethnic divisions, break entire landmasses and lead to massive human costs. Both generals see the war as existential and their interests seem to be at odds with the civilian demand for democratic rule. As happens during these times, the civilians will bear the brunt of the competing thirst for power of two demagogues.
As Fouad Ajami rightfully pens, “The end of despots is always odd exhilarating to those who suffered their tyrannies, and to those who hold despotism in contempt, and anti-climatic at the same time, the discovery that these tyrants were petty, frightened men after all.”
This is how a bunch of power-hungry men have undone the strides of an entire revolution, the so-called Arab Spring, and taken Sudan far away from the realization of the democratic dream the country had seen starry-eyed.
In 2021, Luxembourg’s GDP per capita was $133,590. Compare that to Sudan’s GDP per capita of $751.82. Today, the Scandinavian states have the world’s best standards of living; the UK is known for the strength of its democratic institutions, the US for its innovation driven economy and influence in the international order, while, Sudan is in the news for different reasons altogether - embroiled in a bloody civil war.
Comparative cases like these intrigue students of political science, for drawing counterfactuals is our bread and butter. What if this particular event had not happened at this point in history? What if national elites had done things differently? It is both saddening and intellectually intriguing to wonder how the war being fought on the streets of Sudan today would determine the course of its future in the upcoming decades.
When the Arab Spring uprisings began in 2011 and raged from one country to another in the MENA region, the world expected that ultimately, democratic institutions and norms would prevail, a fresh start from the repressive, authoritarian practices of the region’s erstwhile rulers. The youth of these countries were tired of systems facilitating patronage, corruption, crony capitalism, and inefficiency. Young people wanted change, itself a slogan so often misused for political ends. But the call for change was totemic, rather magical here, and spread from one country to another like blocks of dominoes toppling one after another. While change evaded Sudan for a long time since, in 2019, there was a sliver of hope when protestors forced the long-time autocrat, Omar al Bashir, out of power.
Sudan was finally ready for a democratic transition; the world exclaimed with excitement. However, today’s Sudan is bleary-eyed, war-torn, and bloodied, a victim ravaged by its own kin fighting amongst themselves. At the heart of the conflict are two generals, wielding enough medals on their uniforms to inspire awe, yet both engrossed in a power struggle, vying for control of the reins of government and both unwilling to comprise, as compromise here implies political suicide and a lifetime of subservience to the other.
The fighting erupted in Sudan on April 15th following months of tension between forces led by Sudan’s military leader and de-facto ruler since a coup in 2019, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the Commander of the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), Mohamad Hamdan Dagalo. It is to be noted that Dagalo’s RSF emerged out of the Janjaweed militia which was involved in a genocide in Darfur in the mid-2000s on Bashir’s behest. A power-sharing agreement with civilians, who had led the protests against Bashir’s government, was supposed to give way to a democratic government but was interrupted by a coup in October 2021.
At the heart of the present conflict is the civilian demand for oversight of the military forces and amalgamation of the RSF into the regular armed forces. The Sudanese people also demand the handover of major military assets in agriculture, trade and other industries, a major source of power for the army. Another great source of contention are the allegations of war crimes by the military and its allies in the conflict in Darfur in the 2000s and the killing of pro-democracy protesters in June 2019 - the public demands justice.
Talks for ironing out the details of power-sharing arrangements between the two generals resulted in violent skirmishes and heavy firing, as there were disagreements about the hierarchical distribution of power. The ousted President Omar al-Bashir had led Sudan for about three decades and his reign ended amidst popular protests about rising bread prices.
As the two factions fight for power, as of now, they have agreed to the extension of a ceasefire, which has enabled foreign countries to evacuate their citizens safely. The UN Secretary General’s Representative for Sudan confirmed that there had been a ceasefire in some parts, however, sporadic fighting and relocation of troops was still observed. There have been shortages of basic amenities like food, medication and water and people have been fleeing to the Egyptian border to escape the violence that has the potential to wipe out entire generations of families.
At the very centre of the conflict are civilians, collateral damage in this war, if not dead by bullets, then the quality of their lives eviscerated by hunger and disease. While foreign countries flew their diplomatic staff out of the country within hours, what to say about these helpless Sudanese nationals supposed to be owned and protected by their state, which is itself a victim of the actions and desires of two men and their lust for power. They had looked up to these generals for hope of change; change did come but in the form of a bloodbath. In Khartoum, the RSF is known to have a slight upper hand, whereas the army has greater firepower.
Residential areas are now a battleground, as the RSF is seen occupying residential areas and daring the army to raze the country’s capital. International powers have picked sides, as happens opportunely during times of such internal strife. Egypt is known to ‘unofficially’ support the army, while the UAE, Russia’s Wagner mercenary group, and other regional militias are siding with the RSF.
The former ruler Bashir had, during his 30-year rule, operated on a policy of divide and rule, creating and amplifying divisions between ethnic groups, which then ended up creating militias. With his departure, there has been a security vacuum, and these various militias now scramble for power and influence. The ethnic undertones are quite worrisome and could lead to the subjugation of entire ethnicities if not stopped. One could argue that the conflict was a long time coming, as the partition of the Indian subcontinent or Pakistan’s breaking into two in 1971 on ethnic grounds shows how actions of a few individuals to advance their political interests can activate dormant ethnic divisions, break entire landmasses and lead to massive human costs. Both generals see the war as existential and their interests seem to be at odds with the civilian demand for democratic rule. As happens during these times, the civilians will bear the brunt of the competing thirst for power of two demagogues.
As Fouad Ajami rightfully pens, “The end of despots is always odd exhilarating to those who suffered their tyrannies, and to those who hold despotism in contempt, and anti-climatic at the same time, the discovery that these tyrants were petty, frightened men after all.”
This is how a bunch of power-hungry men have undone the strides of an entire revolution, the so-called Arab Spring, and taken Sudan far away from the realization of the democratic dream the country had seen starry-eyed.