Speech by Shadia Abdelmoneim, political secretary of the Sudanese Communist Party branch in Germany, entitled “The roots of the conflict and the Sudanese vision of democracy” in the panel “Between people’s power and liberal democracy – Traps and necessities in the struggle for liberation”.
Dear comrades Companions in the struggle for a better world in which humans are free from oppression
Who else gives this people the meaning of living and winning? Who else can decide history, new values, and conduct? Who else can shape the world and shape the future?
When we talk about freedom, peace and justice – a slogan of the Sudanese revolution – we have to think carefully about the double standards that rule the world. For capitalism, freedom is not the same freedom that we seek, just as the peace promoted by international imperialist institutions is not the peace that affects our lives, and the justice that neoliberalism promotes to us means that we must accept settlements that preserve their interests. We must also clearly realise that the global political system is patriarchal, and from this perspective, a distorted version of freedom, peace and justice has been imposed on the countries of the Global South.
Let me tell you about Sudan. The modern Sudanese state was formed after the extinction of the ancient kingdoms since the Egyptian-Turkish colonisation of 1820, whose goal was gold and men. Their aim was for strong fighters and gold to finance Egypt militarily and economically. This colonisation and what followed were for the sake of resources, including securing the course of the Nile. The state that was thus formed is a colonial economic system, the nature of which has not changed much, but has been modernised to keep pace with the interests of the colonial states. The colonial powers agreed upon and drew borders to ensure control over resources without taking into account the ethnic and cultural components that inhabited the land that it divided. In this way, they planted a time bomb of divided ethnic components, capable of exploding at any moment in a conflict fueled by identity and resources.
Like within many colonies, Sudanese resistance against colonialism has grown since the middle of the nineteenth century, which has put pressure on the colonialist countries to maintain or increase control, as they realised that they would be forced to leave. They tried to build a political system that would guarantee the native people’s subordination to the colonies and thus benefit from the resources, and this is what happened in Sudan.
As the Sudanese struggled against British colonialism, the means of the national liberation movement varied, including armed resistance, tribal revolts, strikes in cities, military and educational institutions, and literary, cultural and political activity, which resulted in the establishment of the Graduates Club and political parties. What followed the departure of the colonisers was the establishment of the national state, but how?
It was founded on the model envisioned by the coloniser which begins with the Sudanisation of leadership positions, the formation of a national government, passing through a transitional period, and the establishment of the constitutional, executive, and legislative institution. This is known as democratic civil rule from the point of view of the coloniser, which faltered for approximately two years from 1956 to 1958, when the military seized power in the first military coup in the history of Sudan. This fell with the October Popular Revolution in October 1964 in a clear rejection of the military rule that suspended the constitution and failed to address economic and political issues, most notably the issue of the south.
These seeds were planted by colonialism through various measures, including the enactment of the Closed Areas Law, where the dual government administration designated areas in Sudan that foreigners and Sudanese are prohibited from entering or residing in without an official permit. The law included 7 separate regions of Sudan: Darfur, Bahr al-Ghazal, Mangala, Sobat, and Pibor Center – regions located in southern Sudan, in addition to regions in Kordofan, the Nuba Mountains, and northern Sudan. One manifestation of that law was depriving a northern Sudanese of establishing schools in the south if he was allowed to reside there. If he married a southern woman, he could not take his children when he returned to northern Sudan. If we now look at the map of wars in Sudan, we find that it includes the areas covered by this law.
The October Revolution succeeded in overthrowing the government that the West, along with some regional axes, tried to patch up, which proved the Sudanese’s desire for freedom, democracy, and civil rule. However, the American embassy and Abdel Nasser’s regime played a major role in supporting military personnel to carry out a coup against the revolution, so the Sudanese peoples took the streets again in what is known as the Night of the Barricades. Here, the demonstrators attacked the American embassy and the Egyptian embassy. The will of the masses prevailed for a while, as the military once again seized power under the leadership of General Nimeiry and with the support of Abdel Nasser’s Egypt. The importance of the October Revolution lies in the fact that it turned into an ongoing popular battle to restore democratic civil rule in Sudan. It was the first popular revolution in the region to overthrow a military rule, despite the conspiracy of imperialism and Arab reaction against this goal.
Civilian power did not last long, as the military, led by General Numeiri, seized power in May 1969, but the Sudanese people, yearning for freedom, rose up against him in April 1985, despite the support of the reactionary regimes and the support of the United States, and overthrew him, but the military establishment took over power and handed it over a year later to a civilian government that did not last long, as it passed. The Islamists took power through a military coup led by General Al-Bashir. The oppressive rule of the Islamists continued for thirty years, and the resistance of the Sudanese people, yearning for freedom and democracy, continued until the Bashir regime was overthrown by a great peaceful revolution in December 2019. With the December 2019 revolution, the Sudanese raised their goals not only with regard to democracy, but by summarising the strategic goal in the slogan of freedom, peace, and civil justice, the choice of the people.
From the above, we arrive at an important understanding – the roots of the crisis in Sudan lie in two political projects, one of which is imposed by global imperialism in its multiple versions, all of which agree to impose dependency on maintaining the colonial system that it seeded in Sudan since the first periods of colonialism, and which it has insisted on since the era of the Islamic dictatorship, led by Al-Bashir. In his words, a this was a Soft Landing. This boils down to making a slight change in the government system that guarantees them a controlled democracy similar to Egypt and almost all regimes in the region. The Troika countries, namely the USA, Norway, and the UK, mobilised with the help of regional agents, namely the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt, with the help of local agents of politicians of modest capabilities, all starting from the platforms of imperialist institutions such as the United Nations and the African Union, which is a club of dictatorships on the continent.
The second project is the national project for radical change proposed by the forces with an interest in radical change, led by the Communist Party. Various versions were presented in the form of documents to political alliances or from party platforms, including the Democratic Alternative Document and the Civil State Document drafted by the former Political Secretary of the Communist Party, Mohammad Ibrahim Nugud, in addition to the political program of the Sudanese Communist Party approved at its sixth conference in July 2016 under the slogan of freedom, peace and justice.
The essence of the radical change project is to overthrow the July 30 regime, thus overthrowing the political system inherited from the colonial era, liquidating its institutions, recovering the looted funds from the state treasury and the people’s mandate over public money and resources, and employing them for balanced development and building a state economy and institutions that are not subject to external dictates. In essence, it is a project that is consistent with the slogans of the revolution and with the Revolutionary Charter to establish people’s power, which is led by the resistance committees, with other forces consisting of some women’s and civil organisations, demand bodies, elected unions, pensioners, those separated from public service by the Bashir regime and some political parties, led by the Communist Party and the Democratic People’s Party.
The current situation in Sudan is under the weight of war
After a struggle that continued up and down for thirty years, during which the Islamic dictatorship was led by General Al-Bashir, the Sudanese were able to overthrow him in a peaceful mass revolution on April 6, 2019. This upset the regional axes that were benefiting from the economic facilities that Al-Bashir’s regime was providing to them, which were in the form of massive investments, none of which enter the state treasury, but rather go in the form of brokerage in the pockets of the regime’s employees, and military in the form of exporting mercenaries from the Rapid Support Forces to participate in the right-wing war alongside the coalition forces.
The revolution also disturbed some Western circles, led by the USA and the EU, as the US is concerned about its economic and geopolitical interests and fears the Russian and Chinese presence in Africa, specifically in Sudan. The EU also feels threatened with regards to the so-called ‘illegal immigration’ issue, in which it cooperated with the Bashir regime, specifically through the Rapid Support Forces through the Khartoum Process project – a project claiming to respond to human trafficking and the smuggling of migrants, without adequately considering local needs.
After the revolution reached the stage of overthrowing Bashir, Khartoum was crowded with ambassadors and agents in an attempt to chart a course that would preserve the project’s interests with only a slight change. The position of the revolutionaries and their steadfastness in the famous sit-in in the vicinity of the Army General Command prevented this, as the revolutionaries rejected General Ibn Auf, who was presented as a successor to Al-Bashir. At that time, the Western powers and the regional axis countries resorted to seeking the help of some political forces that were part of the Declaration of Freedom and Change, through which they could impose a political project that would guarantee these interests.
The roots of the crisis
Western circles in Khartoum have been active in claiming to support democratic transformation in Sudan through the Troika countries, (USA, UK, Norway) , putting forward an old, renewed project, which is the political system that the imperialist countries see as the best system to guarantee their interests in Sudan. This is the project that these countries have been presenting to Sudan since its political independence from colonialism, and which is amended and patched whenever it fails or is rejected by the masses in a popular revolution. This was repeated in Sudan in the revolutions of October 1964 and the revolution of April 1985, and even during the Bashir period, which made the matter very clear.
The regional axis countries were also active in supporting this project, and their ambitions and interests in Sudan expanded. These countries have historically diversified according to their interests and their proximity to global capitalism, led by the USA. Egypt has been present since the sixties, as well as Saudi Arabia, and Gaddafi’s Libya emerged with his fall, while the UAE rose as a new player in the region.
The current situation and the nature of the conflict
The Troika countries and the regional axis countries, supported by the so-called international legitimacy represented by the United Nations, insist on presenting their political project in Sudan, which includes a settlement that leads to a partnership with the military, or at best, sponsoring a military political system with a civilian cover, that is, formal democracy or controlled democracy. Similar to the Egyptian regime, the popular tide was expanding and the embers of revolution were burning under the leadership of resistance committees, some demand bodies, some unions, feminist organisations and the Communist Party, rejecting this project, proposing as an alternative a project of radical change that does not accept any political settlement or partnership with the military or Islamists.
This dilemma faced the settlement project, which was presented in many versions since 2019, while the street continued to boil until 2023, as the West lost its mind to the so-called framework agreement, which is in essence the same project that the United States is desperate to try to impose on the Sudanese people in complete disregard for the demands of the Sudanese. They presented it under the slogans of freedom, peace and civil justice, the choice of the people, the military for the barracks and the Janjaweed disbanding.
The framework agreement faltered for several reasons, the most important of which is public rejection of its futility, as the revolutionaries see it as a mere experiment for the experimenter who reproduces the crisis. This put the forces supporting the framework agreement, both civilians and military, under tremendous pressure. The military agreed to it under pressure from the so-called international community, while the civilians seek power however they want, as they do not want to share power with the communists whom they believe the West rejects.
The military also doubt their fate if the return of civilians to power intensifies, as they are concerned about the crimes they committed in Sudan since the era of Al-Bashir, through the massacre of dispersing the sit-in on June 3, 2019, especially since the demand for justice is an essential pillar of the slogans of the revolution, and they wanted guarantees of escaping justice, and in their estimation being in power provides them with these guarantees.
Slipping into the abyss of war
On April 15, 2023, armed confrontations broke out between the two factions of the military, part of the framework agreement, with some civilians, and supported by regional powers, which quickly took the form of a devastating war. The two factions are the army, led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, which is supported by the Sisi regime in Egypt, where the USA turns a blind eye to this support unless it affects its interests or project in Sudan. And the Rapid Support Forces (Janjaweed) led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo “Hemedti”, supported by the United Arab Emirates. The European Union blesses this support in order to preserve its interests in combating illegal immigration, in which it cooperates with Hemedti.
In addition to the issue of escaping justice, the two generals are also fighting over the wealth and resources that enable them to maintain power. So, one of the most important motives for the war between the two generals is the struggle over power and wealth. In light of the masses’ refusal to partner with the military, led by the two generals, and the framework agreement that legitimises their existence, maintaining wealth and power has become an almost impossible issue without a political incubator acceptable to the masses and without continuing excessive repression.
This made each of the two generals think about defeating the other by imprinting his betrayal on the revolution and thus presenting himself as the hero who saved the revolution and the protector of civilization and the democratic transition in a miserable attempt to gain the satisfaction of the revolutionaries. While in reality, they both implement the agenda of the patriarchal global political system with great awareness and knowledge, and under pressure from the Troika and the USA.
The masses’ position on the war
In all stages of this conflict, the revolution and the revolutionaries were ignored by all the architects of this chaos, as all the proposed settlements were made in isolation from the masses, and when needed to beautify the face of the project, civil groups were created claiming to be the forces of the revolution in a desperate attempt to give legitimacy to their project. This made the forces of the living revolution realise all of this and began developing a project for radical change and completing the grassroots construction.
It proposed the Revolutionary Charter for People’s Power, which carries a clear vision for the political system that they believe leads to political, economic, and social stability that leads to a democratic civil state based on justice, citizenship, and equal rights, which made the Sudanese citizens, especially the revolting masses, stand by and watch this absurd war that does not concern them in anything. Indeed, the forces of the Radical Change Alliance, led by the resistance committees, declared that they are waiting for the victor in this war to defeat him.
Features of the Revolutionary Charter for People’s Power
The Revolutionary Charter for People’s Power fully affirms the necessity of radical, revolutionary and immediate change to achieve the goals of the revolution by affirming the authority of the masses to achieve judicial justice and social justice.
This was confirmed by the People’s Power Charter, as well as putting an end to the hegemony of the post-colonial state, which is still linked to achieving foreign interests through the continuation of relations of dependency that is not biased towards national interests and plays a fundamental role in absorbing the economic surplus for the benefit of the colonial center, as well as serving the interests of the traditional and parasitic classes that are agents of global and regional capitalism.
This charter is considered a very important historical document, as it analysed, for the first time, the roots of the Sudanese crisis and placed it in its correct historical framework, as well as laying the correct foundations towards a radical solution in detail.
What distinguishes the People Power Charter is that it stems from a real will and was the result of actual participation and a serious and long discussion about the details at the grassroots level, emphasising the necessity of grassroots building, which is considered the necessary basis for actual participation in laying the foundations of the political process from the popular bases that have a real interest in achieving the goals of the revolution. This charter also distinguishes the correct analysis of the essence of the historical Sudanese crisis represented by the failure of the post-colonial state and the continuation of dependency relations in serving the interests of foreign powers in a process that continues until now in the economic exploitation and severe depletion of the country’s huge resources to serve an external agenda that is far from achieving national interests and represents a clear threat to national sovereignty.
The Revolutionary Charter for People Power summarised the Sudanese vision of freedom, peace and justice as follows:
First: Continuing efforts in the process of grassroots participation in the decision-making process. This confirms the importance of the principle of people’s authority and the necessity of grassroots building.
Second: Accelerating the formation of the Legislative Council as one of the most important constitutional mechanisms for implementing the People’s Power Charter on the ground.
Third: Emphasising the principle of effective participation in the Revolutionary Legislative Council from the rules and the necessity of correct and balanced representation of all forces participating in the revolution that have a real interest in achieving the goals of the revolution.
Fourth: The necessity of adopting the revolutionary economic program which aims to rely on own resources, move away from dependence on the conditions of international financial institutions, and eliminate the historical state of empowerment. The focus should be on formulating an urgent emergency program aimed at curbing inflation, alleviating the suffering of the masses, and fighting poverty by creating urgent jobs targeting young people.
Fifth: The necessity of affirming the principle of accountability. This is done through revolutionary legitimacy and the prosecution of all those responsible for the horrific crimes committed against the Sudanese people, crimes of genocide, ethnic cleansing, murder, forced disappearance, torture, displacement and arbitrary dismissal in order to empower the Islamists. In addition to crimes of corruption, plunder, and deliberate waste of the country’s resources.
Sixth: Emphasising the necessity of restructuring the armed forces, dissolving the Janjaweed militias, Al-Bashir’s security apparatus and all other militias, and canceling the so-called Juba peace agreement, which was built on the principle of political quotas and does not serve, but rather destroys, the foundations of peace and justice.
Seventh: Emphasising the principle of state control and people’s authority over all important economic resources such as gold and other natural resources, and affirming the Ministry of Finance’s control over public money, especially companies affiliated with the army and other security agencies.
Eighth: Ensuring the independence of the Bank of Sudan in formulating monetary policy away from political interference and working with high technical efficiency according to a decreed economic program, as well as the necessity of changing the currency for political, economic and security reasons.
Ninth: Eliminating the state that empowers Islamists in all aspects of the state and holding accountable all the corrupt people who benefit from the state of empowerment, especially after many of them returned to their previous positions thanks to Al-Burhan’s coup, which is a clear violation of the goals of the revolution and a deliberate provocation of the revolutionaries.
The Revolutionary Charter for People’s Power presents a vision of popular democracy that contradicts the neoliberal concept of democracy and presents a different paradigm that establishes the actual partnership of the real stakeholders in change, rejecting the model imposed by global imperialism as a single model that guarantees its interests in the world, ignoring the interests of the peoples whose colonial projects have caused their impoverishment and starvation.
We in the Sudanese Communist Party, as we stand with the masses in the same trench, realise that the struggle of the Sudanese, which has continued since the 1940s for freedom, peace and justice, and which was manifested in three popular revolutions, is nothing but a national liberation movement that is fully aware of its goals, just as we are fully aware that this stage a necessary stage for networking with liberation movements around the world to build an international platform that works to build a joint international struggle front against hegemony, plunder of resources, occupation and colonialism in all its forms.
