Nominating a Prime Minster for Sudan

Dr. Elshafie Khidir Saeid

Nowadays, and as a manifestation of responding to the political issues through reactions and not pro-actions, some political actors in Sudan are drawn into discussions and debates about the names of the personalities who might assume the position of the Prime Minister of the Transitional Government.

These names are thrown into the virtual domains, either as a result of wishful dreams or ideas, or they are just test balloons! However, those who surrender to such a state of reaction may not be aware of the fact that these virtual nominations & the discussions that follow are reducing the Sudanese crisis into a mere power issue without touching the essence of the crisis.

I do believe that the priority now is not the nomination of who is to sit on the seat of the Prime Minister, but rather the answer to two main questions, the first one is how this Prime Minster will be chosen and what is the mechanism to do that? and the second question is what is the program that the government of this Prime Minster will implement?

These two questions have only one answer that says this Prime Minster should be chosen by an agreed-upon mechanism composed of the political forces, including armed movements, civil forces, and resistance committees, to implement the revolution’s program included in a new constitutional document, also agreed upon by the same forces.

Any attempt to nominate a Prime Minster before agreeing on a constitutional document is a disregard for the revolution and an underestimation of the value of the sacrifice of its martyrs, and in practice, this will not achieve any stability and the suffocating crisis will continue.

We always say that the top priority now is how to unite the political forces, the civil forces, and the resistance committees in a broad civil front that will lead the transitional period towards the path of civil democratic transformation, and get Sudan out of the dark tunnel.

However, some may argue that it is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve the desired consensus and unity between these forces because of the wide differences and contradictions between them.

But I see, as do many, the opposite, in the sense that there is a great possibility to turn the page on these differences and contradictions, albeit temporarily, and to achieve this consensus and unity.

First, our historical experience, far and near, says that no matter the size of the differences and contradictions between the social and political forces, the possibility of their compatibility in a joint frontal action is there, as long as they share the same goals and objectives.

Second, what if the forces of freedom and change, resistance committees, political forces, armed movements, and civil forces engage in a dialogue to come up with an agreed declaration of principles, drawn from the theses of these forces, including the charters adopted by the resistance committees?

In this regard, I suggest that the resistance committees initiate a call for this dialogue, and if necessary, the tripartite mechanism can assume the role of facilitator, provided that this mechanism receives direct and tangible support from the United Nations and European Union.

This Declaration of Principles will pave the way for a consensus, also with the facilitation of the tripartite mechanism, on a new constitutional document according to which the institutions of the transitional period will be formed from national non-partisan competencies.

The duration of the transitional period will be two years, from the date of signing the document, during which the constitutional conference will be convened and it ends with the elections.