Remarks on the Sudanese Political Process (5)

Dr. Elshafie Khidir Saeid

It is a well-known fact that the main criterion for the success of any political process that includes dialogue or negotiation is not the gains that the parties to this process will get, but rather the ability of the process to address and resolve the roots of the national crisis. In this context, we stress once again that any peace agreement will remain incomplete and easy to collapse if it is reduced to a mere accommodation of the signatories in the governing institutions.

In the same context,  and immediately after the signing of the Juba Peace Agreement, we sent an alert to the leaders of the Revolutionary Front and its cadres saying that they should organize political awareness campaigns in the warzones and among the Sudanese masses to explain the details of the agreement, its tangible gains, as well as the expected difficulties and challenges it is going to face, especially in the implementation phase, and to do reassure the stakeholders that the agreement will not be reduced to serve only the interests of the leaders and the cadres of the Front.

In my opinion, to enjoy a sustainable lasting peace in Sudan, a national comprehensive peace conference should be held in the country. It should be prepared and attended by all the stakeholders from the areas of conflicts and civil war, besides the political forces and the civil society.

The agenda of this conference should include how to mix and match the previous and current signed peace agreements, how to come up with understandings on linking participation in governance structures in the center and the states, and how to come up with implementable understandings and recommendations about the issues of the internally displaced persons and the diaspora, how to deal practically with the issues of compensations, land tenure, Hawakir, grazing paths, justice, transitional justice, and reconciliations.

Also, the agenda of such a conference may include the development plans and reconstruction projects in the areas devastated by conflicts, how to deal with Sudan’s commitment not to host what disturbs the security of the neighboring countries, as well as to discuss how to provide strong support for the success of the transitional period, and how to consolidate the pillars of the civil democratic system for the future of Sudan, and how to liquidate of the counter-revolutionary activities, and how to play a constructive role in the preparation of the national constitutional conference.

I do believe that the positive results of all previous and current peace agreements, in addition to what will be agreed upon in the mentioned comprehensive peace conference, if it becomes a reality, will serve as the road leading to, or the first chapter in, the constitutional national conference entrusted with answering the fundamental questions related to re-building the Sudanese state governed by the permanent constitution.

It is very clear that dealing with peace agreements in the way we mentioned above, and the success of implementing the essential tasks of the transitional period will ensure the preservation of the country’s unity, while failure is the basis of civil war and the fragmentation of the homeland. And any political process that does not set this vision in mind will remain just an illusion and as if plowing at the sea.

Now, why is the history of the political process in Sudan is dominated by failure? Why do the outcomes of such processes instead of resolving the country’s crisis, increase the complexity and aggravation of the situation? Why the Sudanese people are always skeptical about the dialogue processes? We will tackle these questions in the coming article.