Devolution and Transition in Sudan

Like many other African countries, the Sudan is inhabited by many diverse groups and regions. It faced instability and conflict for decades and the military played a hegemonic role both in politics and economy. The popular protests that erupted in 2019 and the ongoing war between the army generals in Sudan that started in Khartoum (Sudan’s capital) are the latest indicators of Sudan’s turmoil. What are the root causes of Sudan’s conflicts and would the 2019 protests and subsequent developments result in meaningful political reform towards genuine devotion and possible transition to democracy? The Sudan has never been able to craft an inclusive political system that reflects its ethnic and regional dimensions. Relations between the center and periphery have been tense. Despite pushes for devolution and inclusion from the periphery, the center continued to impose assimilationist centralized state based on twin foundations: Islamic religion and Arabic language. The periphery albeit fragmented continued to demand for autonomy and inclusion. As a result of tension between the center and periphery, Sudan lost South Sudan and continues to face instability in other regions. The latest protests pushed for civilian rule, autonomy, end to military rule and inclusion but the process seems hijacked by the old establishment. This chapter aims to address the root causes of Sudan’s instability and suggests alternatives ways to manage the relations between the center and the periphery. It demonstrates that the main source of instability and conflict are related to concentration of power and resources by center based in the capital that is responsible for the failed nation building project. Devolution and political inclusion are ideal way outs but such prospects are defied by the old establishment’s centralist mind set and its failure to honor series of agreements for power sharing and devolution. The dominant role of the army is also an obstacle to devolution and the rule of law.