Original Paper Popular Uprisings in Sudan: Revolutionary Processes Intercepted

This article tries to go beyond the general features of the Sudanese three popular Uprisings of 1964, 1985 and 2018/19, to explore their root causes. It argues that the revolutionary processes in the Sudan have been impeded by such factors as: (1) lack of visionary leaders; (2) inter-elites dissensions; (3) intra-party schisms and inter-party conflicts (over interests); and (4) absence of coherent programmatic and mass political parties. Since independence in 1956, the Sudan has been trapped in a vicious circle—oscillating between democratic and military rules. So: “why does democracy fail in Sudan? It compares the different settings that differentiate the Uprising (of 2018/19) from the previous two, with especial emphasis on the latest one—one of the most successful non-violent civil resistances. The article explains that those uprisings could have escalated into full-fledged revolution but were let down by the civil elites who disappointed any prospects for revolutionary achievement”. Hence, the article rests on the hypothesis that “the political elite are responsible for the failure of the popular uprisings in Sudan”. The article provides empirical explanations for this hypothesis and suggests adoption of consociationalism which is more likely to suit the highly diversified Sudanese society with deep ethno-political polarization.

. The Sudan's Syndrome (the Vicious Circle) *The independence of January 1956 was preceded by multi-party elections in November 1953. So the first democratic experience was three years-taking into account that it was terminated by General Abbud's coup in November 17, 1958. The first elected Parliament unanimously declared independence on December 19, 1955 and was officially celebrated on January 1, 19561, . The years: 19651, and 1985 were transitional.

Why Does Democracy Fail in Sudan?
From Figure (1) which both illustrate an oscillating and turbulent political reality in Sudan a central question arises: why does democracy fail in Sudan? This article argues that one of the major causes of this "vicious circle" is related to the political parties in particular and the Political elite in general.
Actually all successful military coups which governed the country six folds the time of democracies were a result of political parties' failure. The political parties who won elections and were in office created crises and then "invite" the army to assume power: (1) In November 1958 when the Umma Party (UP) came to know that his partner in the ruling coalition, the People's Democratic Party, was planning to ally with the opposition Party, the National Unionist Party, to topple Abdalla Khalil's cabinet-by vote of no confidence-because "the country was in political crisis", called upon General Abbud (the Commander-in-Chief) to assume power.
(2) In 1969 the Sudanese Communist Party politically backed General Nimeiri to assume power because the Islamists joined forces with the "traditional" Parties (the UP and the Democratic Unionist Party: DUP) in the Parliament and voted for dismembering those of the Communist Party. Although the court verdict cancelled their decision, the parties behind the decision declined to execute the verdict triggering a political crisis ended by Nimeiri's coup in May 25, 1969. The Communists "fleshed the bones of the military rule" (Note 17) with radical thought and a program for action. However, two years later (in July 1971) the Communists led a coup attempt against Nimeiri who managed to abort it and came back after three days and sentenced the leaders to death. After every successful popular uprising the political parties in power let the people down causing a frustrating set back to democratic rule. Consequently, the country has been undergoing chronic political crises since independence in 1956. The symptom of this crisis is manifested in perpetual political instability-where the army governed more than six folds of the short-lived democracies. This situation of a "country in crises" had been a product of the failure of the elite-namely the political class. This political instability provides empirical evidence that the ruling political elite are responsible for these recurring political crises in Sudan. Hence, it is obvious that the political parties bear the greater part of this responsibility as they have failed to consolidate democratic and stable political system.
One can divide or categorize the political parties in Sudan into four types with respect to their relation to democracy: The first category or group: comprises those parties which do not believe in democracy or not keen to adopt it: e.g., the Islamic Movement (a branch of Muslim Brothers). The movement adopted one-party To enhance the process of democratic transition in Sudan the political parties are to: 1) Amalgamate into a few and strong political parties (instead of being over hundred in a country with only 40 population; 2) Adopt strategic plan for its internal restructuring and reformation; 3) Should have visionary leaders; 4) Adopt a smart strategic political partnership.
Hence, given these crises and challenges-including factionalism and elites' dissensions-real concessions and sacrifices are needed for the sake of public interest. So, it remains a matter of ethics, commitment and patriotism. Actually, the climate brought by the revolution is quite inducing for exerting effective efforts in rebuilding political parties and civil society organizations which both can act as democracy-building institutions.
Therefore, one can hold that the future of democracy and stability in Sudan relies heavily on maintaining the above mentioned requirements: visionary leadership, post-revolutionary institutions building, rebuilding political parties on sound basis to tackle their structural and functional deficiencies discussed in this article, building coherent and conscious civil society organizations to function in a free democratic climate to contribute effectively to democratization and nation building.
It is also advisable for the case of Sudan to adopt consociational democracy-to be adapted to the Sudan's conditions-in a presidential and federal system, and with proportional representation system of elections. This is because as the Sudan is a highly diversified society-especially ethnically-is in need of such an appropriate formula of power-and-wealth sharing.