Omer B. Abu Haraz
Any conflict can only be resolved by one of three methods:
Compromise, Integration, or Domination
Compromise wants a sustainable solution as it leaves both conflicting parties unsatisfied. It is like an analgesic, it stops the systems of the disease temporarily without treating the cause.
Domination is a surgical treatment that removes one part leaving the other enjoying the full benefits. That is to say, one part is fully satisfied and the other fully subdued. This situation leads the losing part to opt for all means to regain what he lost including creating all-out chaos and sabotage.
Proponed of either compromise or domination solutions avoid going deep into the root and actual causes of the conflict and are the psychology of the real leaders of the conflict parts. Integration, unlike compromise and domination, goes deep in the objectives or vested interests of the leaders of the conflicting parts. The integration process starts by singling out the actual groups causing the conflict.
Now the scene of Sudan shows that the two parts causing the dilemma are: The Resistance Committees (RC) wielding the weapon of mobilizing the masses inciting them to take to the streets of the capital and big towns of Sudan. They adamantly stick to the slogans of – No Partnership, No negotiations, and No Bargaining with the military partners after the coup of October 25th which abolished the transitional civil governance. They proved to be steadfast and resilient in achieving their ultimate objective of sustained and guaranteed transition to civilian democratic rule.
On the other hand, the military partner is also standing firmly, based on their constitutional role which is also specified in the army’s laws that put the onus of protecting and safeguarding the safety and security of the country when events grow to the likelihood of massive chaos which threatens the solidarity and coherence of the country, on the army.
So, the actual players of the present precarious match are the RCs and the army leaders. The others are divided into two fans each supporting a team. RCs fans are more.
The ideal integration method of resolving the conflict should start by targeting the RCs and the army top brass.
Political parties of the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC), the second partner which signed the aborted Constitutional Document ith the military partner on August 12, 2019, lost control on the streets to the RC: RCs are no longer.
The Un initiative can only work with the mediators led by Mr. Volker opt for the integration method of resolving the conflict by targeting the RCs and military leaders only. The stance of each side meets at the point of transition to a democratic civilian role. General Burhan repeatedly confirms and undertakes to observe and respect a transition to a civilian role.
Breakthrough is the current impasse is trio-dimensional:
One: Drafting a new transitional document that demarcates the boundaries and duties of each partner – military and civilian. On the top is a new military high council operation from the army’s H.Q. with duties specified in the army’s laws – safeguarding the safety and security of the country in its borders and its citizens.
Two: Full civilian governance in all three levels – sovereign, executive, and legislative bodies to govern in a short transitional period (2 – 4 years) followed by general elections.
Three: Complete absence of the signatories of the constitutional document of August 17th, 2019 from the new transitional period – military and civilians.
So, any protracted discussions with groups other than the RCs and military leader are shooting around the bush.