Sumoud: The Choices of the New Reality

Mustafa Al-Batal

This is a sincere appeal for the sake of God Almighty, directed to our friends gathered under the banner of the Civil Democratic Alliance of the Revolutionary Forces, “Sumoud.” May God guide both us and them to the straight path.

I was pleased to see that your spokespersons have calmed down, regained a measure of composure and wisdom, and that God has enlightened their judgment enough for them to abandon the rhetoric of threats and intimidation toward their political opponents — phrases such as, “No one will be allowed to hover around here anymore.” By God’s grace and protection, you have now reached the point of openly declaring your full acceptance of an intra-Sudanese dialogue inside Sudan with all national forces, without attaching the familiar phrase: “except for…”

That, indeed, is a sign of wisdom and restored awareness. For it was never sound judgment to spend three years calling on people to stop the war and engage in dialogue with the Rapid Support Forces on the grounds that “dialogue is only held with adversaries,” while simultaneously touring Arab and Western forums whispering in their ears that the Islamists control the state, the army, and everything else in Sudan — yet still refusing to talk to them.

It was as though, in your view, dialogue could only take place with an adversary toward whom you already felt affection and who returned that affection, whereas real opponents were to be dealt with through supplication, appeals, and deference to the Western powers of America and Europe, hoping they would come to Sudan with all their might and eliminate the Islamists one by one. One could almost imagine the rock itself crying out to one of them: “O Crusader, O enemy of God, there is an Islamist behind me — come and kill him!”

God forgive us. The greater good lies in all of us returning to reality, confronting its hard truths, and resolving not to follow in Satan’s footsteps, for he is indeed mankind’s clear enemy.

So what are these hard realities on the ground?

Foremost among them is the fact that the mutated wing of the Forces of Freedom and Change — which, through the twists and turns of local, regional, and international politics, eventually evolved into the current entity known as “Sumoud” — derived, or rather once derived, its real strength from its partnership with the armed forces and its assumption of executive authority within that partnership.

This necessarily means that “Sumoud,” without a partnership with the army, possesses no genuine political weight enabling it to govern Sudan.

I do not believe that any of our friends in the “Sumoud” camp still, after all that has transpired, place their hopes in the rumors circulating among critics of General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan — namely, that he secretly seeks to restore partnership with them and return them to executive power, either out of a desire to rid himself of the Islamists or out of fear of facing difficult questions once the war ends: What happened? Who was responsible? And how did the RSF acquire such immense strength and dominance that it managed to control most of Sudan while army officers and soldiers remained confined to their homes?

If there are leaders within “Sumoud” who genuinely buy into this idea and harbor such hopes, then they are mistaken. That dream is nearly impossible to realize. Neither the armed forces nor the Sudanese political street would allow such a scenario to materialize. A brief tour among army officers, soldiers, and the wider public would be enough to confirm this.

Moreover, the geographical areas currently controlled and occupied by the RSF — specifically the entirety of the Darfur region and parts of the Misseriya tribal areas in (West Kordofan) — are, for the most part, loyal strongholds of the Dagalo family. Their future, whether we like it or not, will ultimately be decided at the negotiating table.

No matter how often military leaders repeat their familiar rhetoric about “liberating every inch of Darfur,” the armed forces will neither be capable of — nor likely willing, unless their commanders lose all sense of judgment — fighting a ten-year war against the RSF deep inside its own territories and tribal bases while its supply lines from the United Arab Emirates and neighboring African countries remain wide open.

Whether or not this analysis proves entirely accurate, one undeniable reality concerns us here: the RSF has become completely outside the national equation, and its future presence in Sudan’s political scene is no longer conceivable, whether events end in peace or continued war.

Its political existence depended entirely on its military power. That shadow has receded under the blows of the armed forces and Islamist battalions, while its psychological cohesion has begun to crack as signs of fragmentation and division spread through its ranks. In the end, it has shrunk back into Darfur — a region that was itself once an independent state before joining Sudan in 1916.

In other words, the “Sumoud” camp has lost its principal “Framework Agreement” ally — the very partner it chose to align with and rely upon. We can now imagine the true political value of these friends as they walk the corridors of Sudanese politics stripped bare: deprived of the shirt of partnership with the army and the trousers of alliance with the RSF. According to this metaphor, all they have left is the undergarment of protection and safe haven provided by certain Western powers and the UAE.

But what real benefit have these friends gained — or will they gain — from such protection?

For years, statements and declarations from Western circles have repeated the same calls for transferring power to civilians, and in Western political vocabulary, “civilians” has essentially become shorthand for the “Sumoud” group. Yet what has actually happened after all these years? Nothing.

No matter how greatly some exaggerate the influence of foreign powers, there is absolutely no indication that the armed forces would ever submit to external demands to hand power over to this group merely because foreign governments desire it. Such demands have been repeated dozens of times before — but to whom are you reciting your Psalms, O David?

Reality says that power now lies in the hands of the armed forces leadership, and that the foreseeable future will most likely follow one of two paths.

The first is that the army commander may pursue political ambitions after the war by running for the presidency in early elections, capitalizing on the current wave of popular support behind him. Should he succeed, he would certainly recognize that the momentum which carried him to office came from the pro-army “Bal Bas” camp and no one else. Naturally, this would not be welcome news for “Sumoud,” because it defies logic for a leader to rise to power on the shoulders of one group only to favor and embrace their rivals afterward.

The second possibility is that the military leadership proceeds seriously with arranging a transitional period leading to general elections. In that case, it is highly unlikely that the leadership would care about foreign pressure demanding that power be handed to one faction or another. Indeed, such pressure may not even arise at all.

For what Western state could witness a democratic transition based on free and fair elections — elections it is invited to monitor — while simultaneously demanding that the process be aborted and power handed instead to an unelected group?

So what do we wish to say to these friends?

We say to them: not all roads lead to Rome, and not everything one desires can be attained. Enough wandering from country to country and capital to capital, tossed about by interests and agendas, bought by one side and sold by another, begging for what others possess while they promise you the rule of Sudan and feed you illusions — and illusions are the mount of fools.

Shall I not guide you toward a path that does justice to both us and you, and establishes truth between us?

Come to a common word. Stand alongside the people of Sudan on one shared ground. Let us all call for an end to the war and for the immediate launch of negotiations between the leadership of the national army and all armed groups from Darfur — open negotiations that guarantee the complete and final withdrawal of the RSF and all Darfuri militias from northern Sudan, while placing every option concerning the future of Darfur on the negotiating table without exception.

Then let us jointly call for a national transitional program overseen, protected, and administered by the armed forces in cooperation with qualified national figures, followed by free elections across all northern states, leading to a national parliament and a new constitution for the country.

And demand — with us standing beside you, hand in hand and heart with heart — an advanced legislative and legal reform of the electoral system that grants modern political forces, including yourselves, 50 percent of the seats in the forthcoming parliament. Such a system would ensure these forces their deserved share of power, enable them to express their legitimate aspirations, and solidify their proper role in building the new Sudan.

This was, in fact, the original demand of the modern political forces after the April 1985 uprising, though the political realities of the time prevented its realization for reasons preserved in the history books. Perhaps God will decree that it be achieved through our hands and yours.

“And Allah prevails over His affair, but most people do not know.”