From the Ammunition Box to the Ballot Box: The Challenges of Transition

Dr Al-Haytham Al-Kindi Yousif
The transition from the ammunition box to the ballot box remains both a political imperative and the aspiration of a people exhausted by war. Judged against the present reality, however, such a transition is an intricate undertaking that requires balancing political realism with the demands of justice.
The recent American proposal presented by Massad Boulos—which links the military and political tracks—recalls the experience of the Constitutional Document, whose shortcomings ultimately became evident. At the same time, it raises important questions about its ability to withstand the complexities of the current political and military landscape.
Although the legitimate government responded to the proposal with significant reservations and amendments that largely align with Sudan’s official initiative, which has been submitted as part of the United Nations Security Council’s records, the Boulos proposal nevertheless contains a number of points that merit serious consideration and could serve as a foundation for further discussion. Other aspects, however, are inconsistent with the realities created by the course and outcome of the Battle of Dignity.
If this proposal is to be transformed into a practical framework capable of leading the country towards the ballot box, the principal challenges must first be addressed through a vision that goes beyond procedural formalities. This requires consideration of the following:
1. Resolving the Military Question and Dismantling the Militia
No political process can survive or succeed while two armed forces coexist. Any discussion of a transitional government or elections while the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) remain an organised military force merely lays the groundwork for a second conflict. The militia must therefore be dismantled and its members integrated through a clearly defined and time-bound plan; all parallel armed formations must be prohibited; and a single professional national army must be rebuilt.
To achieve this, the Sudanese Armed Forces must take the initiative and continue operations on the ground to liberate as much territory—and as many citizens—as possible from the militia’s control. Beyond the military objective itself, such progress would help spare Sudan the dangers of fragmentation and national disintegration.
2. The Challenge of Justice and Accountability for Crimes and Atrocities
The rights of victims cannot be sacrificed in the name of political compromise. To prevent the recurrence of war, transitional justice must be activated to hold accountable those responsible for violations, atrocities committed against civilians, and the destruction of public and private property.
These accountability measures must proceed alongside the political process to ensure that perpetrators do not escape justice and to lay the foundations for a genuine state governed by the rule of law.
3. Political Realism and Redefining Political Exclusion
Political exclusion has been tried repeatedly in Sudan’s political history and has often produced strong opposition movements that ultimately resorted to violence or military coups. The guiding principle should therefore be justice, not political exclusion.
Any exclusion of the Islamist movement—which participated alongside the Sudanese Armed Forces in defending the state—from the anticipated political process should be determined solely on legal and criminal grounds. Only those convicted through due judicial process should be barred from political participation, while the ballot box should remain the ultimate arbiter, allowing the Sudanese people to reassess all political forces according to their popular support and moral standing.
4. The Role of the Armed Forces in the Future Political Order
The military institution should not be compelled to withdraw from politics through arbitrary political decrees. Its continued role is linked to the need to eliminate the security threats that originally necessitated its assumption of political authority.
Once security has been restored and the existential threat facing the country has been decisively removed, the military could assume the role of an honorary Sovereignty Council for a temporary period, ending with democratic elections and the establishment of permanent constitutional institutions.
5. The Responsibility of Regional Powers for the War and Reconstruction
Requiring the regional powers that fuelled the conflict to contribute to the costs of reconstruction is neither an act of charity nor a concession. It is a moral and legal responsibility borne by those parties that intensified the conflict and contributed to the destruction of Sudan’s infrastructure. Accordingly, this issue must advance in parallel with the other political and security tracks.
Conclusion
If Sudan genuinely seeks to make the transition to democracy and fulfil the promise of free elections, it must avoid reproducing the fragile transitional arrangements of the past. Instead, it must establish the essential foundations of a stable state: a unified national army, swift and impartial justice that neither exempts nor persecutes anyone unfairly, and a clear international commitment to reparations and reconstruction.
Only then will the ballot box cease to be merely a political aspiration and become the instrument through which the Sudanese state is restored.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=16250