Exclusion is the Incurable Ailment of Democracy in Sudan!

By Dr. Al-Khidr Haroun

The debate surrounding the circumstances of the 30 June 1989 coup that brought about the National Salvation Revolution regime reignited passionately on its anniversary in June 2025.
This debate is, overall, a positive and useful one, as it presents an opportunity for serious reflection on the root causes of the persistent instability and failure of democratic systems in Sudan. It is good because it inherently reflects a preference among most Sudanese for democratic rule, as a form of governance that represents the people in a country that has not witnessed a hereditary monarchy except in ancient times. Even the authoritarian regimes that followed independence were somewhat more open than similar regimes elsewhere, imposed by societies that rendered those autocracies more like democracies, considering how freely people in Sudan have long discussed politics, economics, and social issues, even at funerals and weddings. Yet despite this openness, the people ultimately rejected authoritarianism, casting it off as effortlessly as spitting out a date seed, affirming an egalitarian instinct seemingly embedded in their national DNA.
Instead of solely lamenting the past, we ought to examine the reasons and study the rare but successful experiences of other post-colonial nations — like India, South Korea, Malaysia, Senegal, Ghana, and Kenya — which managed to navigate the complexities of multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies much like our own.
A reading of Sudanese history reveals that our core affliction lies in our conditional acceptance of democracy: we embrace it if our party wins, but dread it if our rivals triumph, assuming they will use their victory to oppress us. Thus begins a race to avoid becoming victims of that same democracy tomorrow, through conspiracies, manipulation, or even soliciting foreign intervention. It is said, for instance, that tribal chiefs in northern Sudan once appealed to Muhammad Ali Pasha of Egypt to invade Sudan. However, he likely already had such plans to expand his empire with Sudan’s gold and workforce.
Historical facts show that political parties and factions in Sudan have always wanted a democracy tailored to their own size, one that excludes their rivals. This is confirmed by the infamous phrase: “This is our country, and we are its masters,” as though others had no rightful place in it.
When the Ashiqqa (Brothers) Party won a sweeping victory during the first transitional period before independence, the Umma Party accused the Egyptians of manipulating the results by pouring in money, which led to the bloody March 1954 clashes during General Muhammad Naguib’s visit, seen by some as proof of an Egyptian conspiracy.
Later, during Abdullah Khalil’s premiership, when his coalition partner, the Democratic People’s Party (associated with the Khatmiyya sect), seemed to be negotiating a reunification with the National Unionist Party under the new Democratic Unionist Party banner — threatening to topple his government — Khalil handed over power to the army, ushering in the rule of General Ibrahim Abboud.
In the second democratic era, the Umma, Unionist, and Charter Front parties moved to ban the Sudanese Communist Party. They expelled its members from the Constituent Assembly, ignoring a court ruling that declared the expulsion illegal.
This paved the way for a broad leftist alliance that toppled that democracy, bringing about the May 1969 coup. Former Prime Minister Mohamed Ahmed Mahgoub, in his book Democracy on the Balance, blamed the coup on a poisoned dagger forged by Nasser — with Nimeiri in Sudan and Gaddafi in Libya — in preparation for Egypt’s war of attrition against Israel.
In the third and most recent democratic era (1986–1989), the ruling coalition was plagued by fierce infighting between its two main parties over ministerial posts and foreign policy, prompting Foreign Minister Al-Sharif Zain al-Abidin al-Hindi to lament the coalition’s dysfunction publicly. This was the hallmark of all democratic coalition governments in Sudan.
At one point, the opposition leader in the Constituent Assembly — which, in a Westminster-style democracy, acts as a shadow government — submitted an alternative budget proposal. The majority leader reportedly dismissed it, saying: “Why waste your time submitting it item by item? Just give it to us all at once, and we’ll reject it all at once!”
The military memorandum of February 1989 led to the ousting of the Islamist movement from Prime Minister Sadiq al-Mahdi’s government. Sadiq later said the military did not explicitly demand their removal, but that Defence Minister and army chief Abdel Majid Hamed Khalil was no friend of the Islamists.
I visited Khartoum during the 1988 floods when the city had no governor, due to infighting between the Unionists and the Islamists over appointments. I witnessed unprecedented intimidation of citizens by SPLA elements: in bread lines, on public transport, everywhere — and there were many lines back then!
There was even a dispute between two of them over who would claim a luxury building once Garang captured Khartoum! I personally wouldn’t have ruled out such a takeover, given what I saw and heard, including quotes attributed to Garang about massacres like those in Zanzibar.
The Salvation coup was preceded by talk of at least seven coup plots “in the pipeline” — not just by the Islamists, but by Baathists, Nimeiri loyalists, and others.
After the fall of the Salvation regime, and with political disagreements over the Framework Agreement, one of its most enthusiastic supporters threatened to go “embassy to embassy” inciting foreign support!
Now, what can the current Quad (U.S., UK, UAE, and Saudi Arabia) do but impose a controlled democracy — one dominated by their local allies and backed by international powers like the U.S.?
Democracy — with free elections and true national sovereignty — remains our highest aspiration. It is the surest path to human dignity. Despite its shortcomings, Sudan has long stood as a unique island of freedoms in the region — and there are forces unwilling to allow it to shine again so easily.
Thus, our diverse society poses a danger to democracy — we fear each other, and the region fears us. So what is to be done?
We must focus on this essential question: how do we build a resilient and sustainable democracy? A democracy that everyone — even the smallest group — believes is worth preserving, and feels included in. A system that inspires loyalty and sacrifice when danger strikes. A democracy that never says, “Everyone has a place — except that group.” For it is from that single “except” that evil, exclusion, and conspiracy are born.
Equally important is working to reduce regional and foreign interference — a prerequisite for achieving true independence, where the national interest rises above all else. Only then can we realise our people’s aspirations for prosperity and dignified living. From this position of strength, Sudan can engage constructively with neighbours and the world at large based on legitimate mutual interests enshrined in international laws and systems.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=6408