On October 25, Sudanese troops took over the government. The army chief, General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, overthrew the government and the independent organization, suspended the difficult parts of the 2019 Constitutional Charter in Sudan, and established a state of emergency, sparking major political crisis over Sudan’s two-year transition. . Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok and some of his ministers were arrested. Al-Burhan announced that the military had formed a new government, promising elections in July 2023.
On October 30, thousands of Sudanese people marched to Sudan to protest against the coup. A live ammunition was fired at protesters, and at least three people were killed and more than 100 wounded.
Since then, protests have continued to respond to calls by the Sudanese Professionals Association (SPA) for anti-government protests. This has shown the courage and interest of the Sudanese people to maintain a democratic transition and their ability to mobilize the country.
Among the several communication trials taking place in Khartoum, there are three possible outcomes. The game will be confirmed if all its participants – the military, the Forces for Freedom and Change (FFC), which emerged as a political power after the 2019 revolution, and protesters – are ready to carry a higher price. struggle or tolerate cooperation.
The first event is to continue the process that the military initiated and facilitated the seizure. This means that the people of Sudan have to accept the political policy they have been suffering from for 30 years and buy into the idea that what the military has done against the civilian government is in the best interests of the country.
However, there is no doubt that Sudanese youths, who continue to hold protests, anti-neighborhood committees, who have led the movement since 2019, major military forces, such as the Sudanese Professional Association (SPA), or the FFC itself, will allow it. they return to their petitions to return to normal rule. This would have put them at odds with the military, as they would have to regroup to fight for democracy. As a result, they would have to pay a much higher price, perhaps even higher, as many lives could be lost through the struggle for security.
The proliferation of military and military forces could cause the country to collapse politically and economically and end all that has happened to improve relations with countries and financial institutions around the world. The US has already set aside $ 700m in financial support after the seizure and billions of dollars in debt repayment could be on the line. Military officials may also face sanctions against the US and other Western countries.
The second step is to reverse the seizure and return to the status quo on October 25. This will mean the resumption of the Constitutional Charter of 2019, which was signed between the Armed Forces and the FFC, and the restoration of an independent body and government. Both opponents and the military can oppose such a development.
For the Sudanese people who took to the streets, a return to pre-political policies means that the political tensions that initially sparked will not be addressed. This includes the transfer of the chairmanship of the sovereignty Council to the common people and the removal of any military force. Major protests over the past two weeks have shown that the Sudanese people want a more independent state.
For the military, going back to what happened before means recognizing that what happened is a seizure and its leadership cannot be trusted. This could expose al-Burhan and the ambassadors who assisted him in prosecuting him and could threaten their power.
The third event can see that all parties involved have agreed to make peace. This would require the consent of all parties and would require the revision of the 2019 Constitutional Charter, and the necessary changes to the power-sharing system to ensure that political tensions are minimized. The sovereignty Council and the civilian government must be restored.
While political settlements can take place in a variety of ways, demonstrating the efforts of mediation, in my opinion there are a number of steps that need to be taken to ensure that they are sustainable.
First, the settlement should provide an opportunity for ordinary people to seize control of the country. A new government led by Prime Minister Hamdok should be established without interference from the military or other parties. The Supreme Council should be re-established and reduced. Existing civilian and military members, including al-Burhan and General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, aka “Hemedti”, commander of the notorious Rapid Support Forces, must resign to find a new member of the public, which could boost public confidence. all the people.
Of course, a lack of control over the military might have worried the military leadership, so it should be given political affirmation. In order for al-Burhan and Hemedti, in particular, to get out of Sudanese politics, they would have to be protected from prosecution because of previous crimes. This may be the only way to address the military’s involvement in political affairs.
With the exception of the military and political forces, represented by the FFC, the demands of two other key figures should be considered: the various armed forces, which signed the Juba peace process with the revolutionary government in 2020, and the protesters and mobilizers.
Some of the militants, who felt unaffected by the ongoing political change in Sudan, joined the army in a bid to overthrow the government, participating in military demonstrations demanding the overthrow of the government. Every appropriate establishment should respect the shared jurisdiction of the Juba peace process and try to convince the parties that their interest lies in establishing civilian rule, not in the military.
The needs of the Sudanese who took to the streets and the groups of people they helped should also be considered. The SPA committees and the protesters have been calling for nothing but a complete overhaul of the civilians on the progress and do not see any political part in the military, especially after the takeover. If their concerns are not addressed, there is a risk that the settlement will not be well received by the general public and the parties may be prepared to deal with it.
This may be difficult to achieve, but it seems, in my opinion, to be clear, which could protect the country from political and economic crises.
Historically, one of the greatest challenges for the Sudanese people was, not to overthrow oppressive regimes, but to promote democracy as a change of government took place. Establishing traditions and democratic institutions to protect the realization of political freedom and population has been a challenge. The current crisis offers an opportunity to shape history and establish a stable democracy in Sudan.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Al Jazeera.