columns

perhaps


Muhammad Saad


Converting armed movements into parties
Traditionally, armed groups and political parties have been seen as two opposite ends of the political spectrum. Armed groups obstruct and impede the democratic political process, while political parties are the main players in promoting democracy and the rule of law. However, such a binary (political-military) framework is highly problematic, as it fails to appreciate the similarities between these two types of organizations, as well as fails to explain the existence of several mixed (political-military) organizations.
Particularly in recent decades, several armed groups have established affiliated political parties to compete in elections and win public office. The influence of mixed-armed political organizations also increased.
This is of particular importance, as the group’s institutionalization can undermine its organizational legitimacy once its armed activities wane. In the same way, with the passage of time and the establishment of more groups similar to it, the point of distinction of the group can be compromised. Under these circumstances, these groups face pressures to reassert their autonomy and legitimacy, and they often respond to these institutional pressures by expanding.
Sudan is a good example of the application of this theory, in the fact that the armed movements that were fighting the Al-Bashir regime no longer have a real reason to play their role in light of the departure of the Al-Bashir regime after the Sudanese revolution, and for this reason, the transformation of the armed movements into political parties guarantees them to remain in the Sudanese arena and seek to implement their agenda through other means Other than weapons, the next stage in Sudan allows everyone to participate positively in democratic development.

Back to top button