Sudan coup: Frustrated by political splinters within his incubators, PM calls it a day (A PANA news analysis by Mohamed Osman)
Khartoum, Sudan (PANA) - The resignation of Sudanese Prime Minister, Abdulla Hamdok, came as no surprise to many observers.
After all, he had been issuing ultimatums for the last three weeks that without Sudanese political parties closing their ranks and agreeing on a unified national agenda he would not be able to continue at the top of the executive. None of his threats were taken seriously.
Two years ago Hamdok came to power on the waves of unanimous political consensus, including the Islamists that the 2019 revolution threw out of power.
He was the man ousted President Omar Bashir invited back in 2018 to come and assume the post of Finance Minister. But Hamdok declined the offer after a hesitation of about two months.
He enjoyed high approval rate among the military establishment, as he was one of the few political figures that came with the 2018 change who had never smeared or rebuked the military establishment. On the contrary he was one of the fervent advocates for the hybrid government in which the military play a vital role.
But one element which many observers criticised Hamdok for was his constant desire to reach consensus and please all sides when unpopular political, not economic, decisions were needed.
For once he spent almost two months prior to his resignation on Sunday, labouring to form a government following the 25 October coup staged by Lt General Abdul Fatah Al Burhan. He failed to deliver.
His argument was that without political consensus any government he formed was doomed to failure.
Hamdok’s assessment of his two-year reign in power was that it was a mixture of success and failure.
On the international scene, the area of his power, he was able to remove Sudan from the US list of terrorism sponsors. He was also able rally the support of international financial institutions for Sudan that came out with a promise to write off most of Sudan’s US$60 billion in foreign debts.
One main reason behind Hamdok’s weakness was his political incubators: the Sudanese communist party, the Umma National Party of the late Prime minister Sadeq El Mahdi, and the consortium of Arab Baath and Nasirite political entities, on the one hand, and the youth revolutionaries on the other hand.
The Sudanese Communist Party left the close circle of Hamdok, though they kept ministers within the cabinet, because they accused the PM of fully endorsing the World Bank and the IMF prescription.
The Umma party wanted to serve its own political agenda, sharing the good gains with the PM but when it came to the unpopular economic measures they distanced themselves, leaving him prey to the attack of the Islamists and the right wing.
The Arab and Nasirite parties were unhappy with the distance Hamdok adopted vis-à-vis Egypt, and Arab League priorities.
They youth wanted quick results, which could not be achieved given the international institutions' bureaucracy.
Each of those groups wanted to lure in Hamdok and fight off the other. He was left alone. His only way to press them into action was to resign.
“This is a regrettable development. But let us turn this crisis into a good omen and an opportunity to close our ranks and lead our country safely to shore. The responsibility of the political forces today and their need to reconsider their stance not only within their ranks is much needed now than any time before,” wrote the current Minister for Finance and National Economy, Dr Ibrahim Dijbril.
Dijibril is one of the few people who could be nominated as PM. He hails from Darfur and he is the leader of the militarily powerful Justice and Equality Movement.
The second possible candidate is the former Finance and Economic Planning Minister, Dr Ibrahim Badawi who has the same career as that of the outgoing Prime Minister.
He served with the IMF and with a number of international western financial institutions. He also was the man who started implementing the IMF prescription for which Hamdok, under pressure, fired him. But these same policies were later on applied to the letter.
Badawi is said to have set a number of preconditions, top of which is political consensus and free hand to act, for him to accept the post.
It is also quite possible that a university professor Hanood Abia Kadouf, whose named popped out during a previous crisis during Hamdok’s tenure, would be nominated for the post.
The question however remains who is to nominate the new prime minister because anybody coming from the military list would be rejected right away by the youth in the street and the Forces for Change and Freedom (FCF) divided into two camps: the Revolutionary Council and the Leadership Council, each pulling in opposite direction.
However observers do not discard the possibility that within this week, the political forces will come together and choose a prime minister giving him free hand to form his cabinet.
History provides ample examples in the Sudan, the first of which was in 1956 when totally opposed Nationalist Umma Party and the pro-Egyptian pro-Arab Democratic Unionists, left behind their bitter rivalry and voted unanimously for the full independence of the Sudan.
The British said, as a reward for Sudan’s support to the allies in the Second World War, they would grant the country independence provided a unanimous stand was reached. They were aware of the rivalry between these two major political parties at the time.
The Sudanese surprised them and voted from within the parliament for independence from Egypt and from UK.
Rest to be seen if history would repeat itself this month of January, as was the situation back in January 1956, at the background of the current tense political situation left behind by the resignation of Prime Minister Hamdok.
-0- PANA MO/ 3Jan2022
