From “FFC” to “Taqadum”: Why Did the Sudanese Freedom Forces Coalition Shed Its Skin?
By: Dr. Omar Atta Al-Mannan
In the midst of a complex Sudanese political landscape, the “Forces of Freedom and Change” coalition (FFC) has taken no small step — announcing the birth of a new entity under the name **”Taqadum”** (Progress). At first glance, the scene may appear to be nothing more than a change of signboard, but at its core it is a political **shedding** — a deliberate detachment from a past weighed down by failures and accusations.
Between the FFC that once governed and Taqadum that aspires to return, several decisive motivations explain why the coalition was compelled to change its skin in this dramatic fashion.
First: Escaping the Shadows of the Transitional Period
The FFC name became inseparably linked to the transitional period (2019–2021), which observers broadly agree was an administrative and economic nightmare. From bread crises to sharp internal divisions, the revolutionary dream descended into a daily scramble for seats. Rebranding as “Taqadum” is an attempt to shed that cloak of failure and present a new image untainted by the shortcomings of the past.
Second: The Weight of the Street and Its Bitter Chants
Over the past two years, the name “FFC” transformed into a political **insult** in the streets and protests. Popular anger against the coalition’s figureheads accumulated to the point where the name itself became an obstacle to any meaningful public dialogue. “Taqadum” here is an attempt to circumvent that collective angry memory and open a new window of communication with a public that has lost faith.
Third: Reclaiming the Game of Political Symbolism
In politics, a name is a brand. “FFC” had become shorthand for polarization. “Taqadum,” by contrast, is a word laden with positive connotations: construction, the future, reform. The renaming is an implicit acknowledgment that the coalition lost the battle for public perception, and that it is in dire need of a complete **rebranding** to recover some of its symbolic legitimacy.
Fourth: The Collapse of the Illusion of Return Through the Constitutional Document
The FFC had long wagered on returning to power through the legitimacy granted by the previous constitutional document, pursuing that goal through negotiating platforms such as the “Framework Agreement.” However, the complexities of the political and military landscape, and the entrenched positions of the key players, ultimately convinced them that this equation was impossible. Coalition leaders came to realize that the document bearing the FFC’s name was no longer a magic key to power, and that any return to governance could no longer be achieved without passing through the ballot box and elections. This belated realization made clinging to the old name pointless — and so “Taqadum” became the gateway to searching for a new legitimacy.
Fifth: Shielding Against Legal Accountability
In the midst of the current war between the army and the Rapid Support Forces, accusations are no longer directed solely at the two warring parties — the FFC has been directly implicated as well. A growing narrative holds the coalition’s policies responsible for paving the way for the war and the collapse of the state. As calls for accountability intensify, changing the name became an urgent necessity. It is an attempt to hide behind a new identity, out of fear that the old name could drag its leaders into a flood of legal proceedings or popular reckoning.
Conclusion
The shift from “FFC” to “Taqadum” is not the birth of a new project — it is **political survival** under a new skin. It is an attempt to escape the dust of the past and reshuffle the cards in an unforgiving political landscape, where the old name had become a burden too heavy to bear for a leadership that faced its fate with two faces: the face of a failed governance, and the face of complicity in the prelude to a devastating war.
