The Sudanese problem is not unique
two weeks have lapsed since the MORE THAN beginning of domestic fighting in the Sudan between the heads of two military organizations that were in charge of guiding the country into a transition to democracy. One of the organizations was the Sudanese army under the leadership of General Burhan. The other, Mohammad Dagalo, on the other hand, commanded the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Dagalo known as Hemedti was a former warlord who had commanded a group of irregulars known as the Janjaweed that had established a reputation for ruthlessness in putting down the rebellion in Darfur. His forces were formally recognized in 2017 as a militia.
In the agreement to move Sudan toward democratic government, the two forces were to be integrated. Long before the outbreak of hostilities between the military organizations, it was known that the commanders had a tense relationship. As a professional soldier in the Sudanese Army, General Burhan wanted to allow no autonomy for the RSF. Dagalo, on the other hand, did not imagine being reduced to the status of an officer who took orders from another commander and lead troops whose loyalty were not personally to him. Hence, the fighting between two organizations that were supposed to move toward becoming one.
The integration of irregular forces into an army is always problematical, often leading into internal fighting. Turkey ran into similar developments during its own war of national liberation where irregular bands that had fought with the national army took up arms against it when they were asked to submit to its authority. But, the problem in the Sudan may have deeper roots than just the integration of two military organizations. It may be remembered that the Sudan was involved in a constant state of war in its South until the region seceded in 2011. It was alleged that the Sudanese government dominated by Northern Muslim Arab leaders neglected the South comprising mainly an African and Christian population. Soon after independence, however, it became clear that there were other cleavages in society, primarily tribal, that rendered it difficult for the entire land to be under one rule. An inconsequential Dinka-Nuer civil conflict ended with an agreement only in 2023. It is not clear that the agreement will hold; the country may go back to domestic fighting any moment.
Coupled with the experience of South Sudan, the current Sudanese conflict, suggest that there may be a fundamental problem with the way politics is organized in these lands. It may be useful look at other African societies to appreciate the nature of the problem. Recently, for example, Ethiopia went through a civil war. The Oromo dominated government attacked the Tigray areas to bring them under full control of the central government. It was resisted by the Tigray People’s Liberation Army. The Eritrean Army representing a neighboring country that had broken off from Ethiopia a few years ago and had its own accounts to settle with the Tigrayans came in to support the intervention of the Ethiopian military. Or, we may recall the massacre of the Tutsis by the Hutus in Rwanda in 1990 or the civil war in Nigeria between the Ibos (Biafra) and the Hausa-Fulanis of the North much earlier.
What is the problem? These societies are all former colonies where people lived in artificially drawn borders by the colonial powers. When they became independent after the Second World War, they harbored groups of people who did not feel they belonged together and live under the same administration. As the colonial rulers withdrew and it became reasonably certain that they would not return, differences among various groups that felt that they would not want to live under the same political system began to surface and take political form. In some, there were constant struggles by groups who wanted to break away from the country that the colonial rulers had left behind. In others, representatives some ethnic group tried to establish a commanding position in government so that they could dominate the rest. In rare instances, as in the case of South Sudan and Eritrea, the efforts to become a separate state succeeded. In others, domestic politics quickly turned authoritarian and provided opportunities for one ethnic or tribal group to dominate others.
The domestic struggles in African societies are rendered more severe and often more difficult to solve by the involvement of external powers. There is the notorious case of Congo Kinshasa where Belgians fostered good ties with the ruler of Katanga, Moise Tshombe, to protect their commercial interests. The legitimately elected leader, Patrice Lumumba, paid with his life in his efforts to rule his country. In the case of Sudan, for example, Egypt appears to be backing General Burhan while the Libya warlord Hafter is with Dagalo.
Many African states are political anomalies. They cannot be changed now. But, many will go through domestic struggles. We will have to live with them and try to help them manage their differences in peaceful ways and hopefully evolve into national political communities.