Questions on the success of The Sudanese National Dialogue
By: Dr. Raja’a Shawkat
The Sudanese National Dialogue was launched after internal consultations headed by UN envoy Volker Perthes and facilitated by the tripartite mechanism (the United Nations, the African Union, and the IGAD).
The chairman of the Transitional Sovereign Council Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan confirmed the acceptance of the mechanism’s invitation for dialogue, while the Alliance of Forces for Freedom and Change announced its boycott of the dialogue sessions.
The forces of freedom and change boycotted the sessions and made it clear that they should lead to the establishment of democratic civil authority. The spokesman of the forces of freedom and change, Mr. Wajdi Saleh, stated (that the live political forces did not participate in the dialogue and will not recognize its outcomes, and we call on the mechanism to correct this mistake).
Saleh added, “The Sudanese all discovered during the first session that the coup is talking to itself and that any political process must end the coup and chart a civil, democratic path away from the army. Otherwise, it will be a failure.”
It also recorded a complete absence of all active political forces in the street, such as the resistance committees, the gathering of professionals, and the major political parties.
In conjunction with the start of the dialogue sessions, demonstrations organized by the resistance committees and the revolutionary forces continued against the measures taken by Al-Burhan, US Assistant Secretary of State Molly Phee continued her meeting with the forces of the revolution, and several officials in an attempt to find a way out of the crisis.
The US embassy expressed this in a statement, clarifying (that Phee seeks to urge the Sudanese parties to support the efforts of the tripartite mechanism aimed at conducting a direct dialogue that leads to an agreement to end the crisis).
What is remarkable in the dialogue sessions is the emergence of prominent allies of the ousted President Omar al-Bashir who were known as (agents of the defunct party), including the head of the Ummah Party of Reform and Renewal and the minister in the former regime, Dr. Sadiq al-Hadi al-Mahdi, Dr. Tijani al-Sisi, Dr. Mayada Sewar al-Dahab, and Dr. Kamal Omar.
At a time when the opposition Communist Party rejected dialogue, what separates the gap in consensus on inclusive dialogue and because which dialogue sessions face challenges, is the mechanism’s reliance on the principle of dialogue with those who attended.
At this time, it can be said that any dialogue that does not enjoy the acceptance and participation of the forces of the real revolution, and in which the repertoire of dialogue does not expand for the backwardness of the political components will not change anything from the political reality.
As Professor Omar Muhammad Ali Muhammad, professor of international relations at the University of Khartoum, believes that no political component should lag behind dialogue and that the solution cannot come from neighboring countries, major countries, or Western organizations.
He also believes that the dialogue should seek to develop the constitutional document and reach a government of independent specialized national competencies, not a caretaker government that works to achieve peace and security and prepare an interim constitution to prepare for elections, describing the situation now as critical that threatens the integrity of the country and not the political system.
Undoubtedly, dialogue represents an urgent and agreed-upon demand. It is the only opportunity for Sudan to formulate a new social contract in which all political forces participate to find consensual solutions that end the state of economic, political, and security turmoil.
