Emma Emeozor, [email protected]
The African Union talked tough after the Sudanese military announced it was setting up a Transition Military Council (TMC) to rule for two years following the ouster of former President Omar al-Bashir.
The organisation gave the military 15 days to quit, warning that military rule is not acceptable to Africa. The AU has been a docile organisation, known for barking without biting in matters that bothers on the violation of the rule of law in member states.
The statement issued from its headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, was a welcome development because, for once, the organisation was ready to bare its fangs. But to the disappointment of observers, the threat ended in rhetoric.
The protests in Sudan, particular the stand-off between the army and the protest leaders over the composition and duration of the transition council has further exposed the inherent weakness of the AU, a continental body saddled with the responsibility of repositioning Africa in global affairs.
Despite the overwhelming support the protesters received from within and outside Sudan, the AU could not give impetus to it by ensuring that the army quit the stage and allow a democratic process to take place.
The recalcitrance of the army, leading to the decision of the Sudanese Professional Association (SPA) to declare its intention to inaugurate a rival transition council may not have occurred if the AU had sticked to its initial rejection of army rule.
Apparently, the Sudanese military lobbyists had succeeded in penetrating the circle leaders of AU member states. Few days, after the AU secretariat issued its threat, some African leaders called for the extension of the 15 days given to the army to quit to three months, arguing that there is need for more time to negotiate.
The position of this group of leaders immediately sent out clear signals that the AU has reneged on its threat not to allow the army get involved in the transition process. And this was exactly what happened. Thus, the AU tacitly encouraged the continued incursion of the Sudanese army into politics.
Undoubtedly, the protest leaders was forced to accept a joint military-civilian transition council after it became clear that external support from an organisation like the AU would not come.
At the weekend, the army reached agreement with the protest leaders to constitute a joint civilian-military council which will “pave way for a civilian administration” that would prepare ground for election.
“The joint civilian-military council will be the overall ruling body, while a new transitional civilian government is expected to be formed to run the day-to-day affairs of the country, a key demand of protesters,” reports said.
But for the resilience of the protesters, the army would not have agreed to include a civilian in the transition council. It is therefore worrisome that the AU continues to compromise in crucial matters that infringe on the constitutional rights of the people. It is still glued to its old approach of persuasion and dialogue as means of resolving disputes in member states.
Certainly, the imbroglio created by the insistence of the Sudanese army to take over power after civilian protesters had forced a tyrannical leader, who transformed from a military Head of State to a civilian president to quit, was provoking enough for the AU to have slammed the army hierarchy with severe sanctions. This would have sent a clear message to the military in other countries that the AU has risen to its responsibility of enthroning true democracy in the continent.
If the European Union, the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia had issued a threat, the Sudanese army would have allowed withdrawn and allow civilian transition council to administer the country until an electoral body is constituted to conduct general elections.
A minute delay after the expiration of the ultimatum would have resulted in severe sanctions being imposed on the army hierarchy. When the EU, the US, the UK, France and other European powers sneeze, power drunken African leaders, both in government and in the army shiver.
It is a farce that 56 years after the AU (formerly the Organisation of African Unity) was formed, it has remained a toothless bulldog, always taking the back seat while other regional bodies and countries determine which direction the pendulum swings in African matters.
Al-Bahsir was responsible for the Darfur genocide. But it was the International Criminal Court (ICC) that issued a warrant for his arrest even though Sudan was not a signatory to the World Court’s treaty. Also, the US and the EU imposed sanctions on al-Bashir and its government. While the outcry against the Darfur genocide was loud overseas, the AU was dragging its feet, allowing al-Bashir to participate in its summits. Indeed, the AU gave al-Bashir ‘cover’ even as the ICC tried to get him arrested.
It was a similar episode in Liberia when former President Charles Taylor threw to the winds the rule of law and adopted a czarist style of leadership in his bid to silence perceived opponents and stay in power as long as he deemed appropriate. Taylor even extended his domain to Sierra Leone, exploiting the natural resources of the country, including diamond to fund the civil war in Liberia.
Also, in Cote d’Ivoire, former President Laurent Gbagbo locked horns with the incumbent president, Alassane Ouattara over who becomes the country’s next leader, a political crisis that resulted in armed conflict. Lives were lost and many displaced in the conflict.
And in Algeria, ousted President Abdelaziz Bouteflika resisted the people’s demand not to seek a fifth term until the army stepped in when it became obvious that the situation would degenerate into anarchy. In Zimbabwe, but for the intervention of the army, the protests that sent veteran leader, Robert Mugabe packing, would have resulted in anarchy. Curiously, the army chief at the time, Gen Constantine Chiwenga immediately retired to become a vice president in the government that emerged after the exit of Mugabe.
In all these cases, the AU was in a dilemma as to how to react just as it has happened in the case of Sudan. Indeed, the citizens of these countries were left to carry their ‘cross.’ The memory of the dismal outing of the AU during the December 2018 DR Congo presidential election cannot be forgotten so soon. The AU prevaricated when it was alleged that the election result was rigged and the main opposition candidate, Martin Fayulu and the Catholic Church called for vote recount.
Until the AU chose to face the reality of the time and begin to match words with action, Africa will continue to be at the mercy of Europe and America. The AU must acknowledge the fact that there are occasions for the deployment of conflict resolution tools such as consultation, persuasion, dialogue and there are also other occasions when it becomes imperative to deploy force without compromising. Such force may not necessarily involve the use of guns.
The AU must muster the courage to impose sanctions on erring member states, individuals and groups if true democracy must take its course in Africa. Put differently, the AU must begin to ensure its member states respect the rule of law.
For the AU to have allowed the Sudanese army to be involved in the transition council is unfortunate. Since the country gained independence in 1956, it had never had a stable civilian government. Its history is characterized by civil wars. It is a country that has been at the mercy of tyrannical leaders.
Two years after independence, the military sacked the civilian government. It relinquished power six months later following public protests. About seven months later, former military dictator, Jaafar al-Nimeiri crushed the civilian government that emerged in a military coup. Under al-Nimeiri, the country witnessed the reign of tyranny for 16 years just as he survived series of military coups.
Nimeiri’s government was swept away by a popular uprising resulting in another military intervention in 1985. The turbulence across the country was unabated and therefore, the civilian government that emerged was short lived. It was al-Bashir who toppled the government with the support of Islamist extremists.
Analysis of military intervention by Sudanese army during popular protests against unpopular government(s) shows a worrisome trend. The military waits and only intervenes after the protests had gathered force sufficient to unleash mayhem on the society.
They first express sympathy and support for the people, after which they ‘strike’ and seize power. The current military has applied the same tactics, except that this time, the people summoned the courage to resist army rule. The agreement to form a joint civilian-military transition council cannot but be described as victory for the people.
However, it must be noted that the civilian-military transition council is a marriage of convenience and therefore the AU and other regional bodies, including the international community must be on the alert and be ready to give adequate support to the Sudanese people to overcome the challenge of a smooth process of transition that would usher in a democratically elected government.
Members of the transition council owe the people the obligation not to betray the trust they repose in them. That trust requires that the national interest be the guiding principle in all the deliberations and policies that would be made ahead of the general elections.
Sudan is a multi-ethnic country. Though dominated by Islam, there are non-Muslim groups. It must be remembered that the introduction of Sharia law once led to a civil war. Also, the lesson from Darfur must not be forgotten. Summarily put, the transition council must put into consideration all the ills that have made Sudan a war theater as well as one of the poorest countries of the world even with its rich natural and human resources.