The New York Times published an article whose authors believe that the motive behind the coup that took place in Sudan was the unwillingness of Major General Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan to relinquish power.
In their joint article in the newspaper, Kilian Clark, an expert on the Middle East and North Africa, and Mai Hassan, a professor of political science at the American University of Michigan, pointed out that the proof justified the coup by the conflict and the crisis within the transitional government, whose popularity declined with the deteriorating economic conditions in the country.
But the real reason for the coup against the transitional government is clearer, according to the authors. Major General Al-Burhan was scheduled to hand over the presidency of the Sovereignty Council early next November, and it is clear that he was not ready to give up power.
The article explains that international condemnations of the coup have failed to dissuade military leaders who vehemently refuse to back down, and who responded harshly to civilians who took to the streets to protest the military takeover.
there is hope
The authors say that the specter of the return of military rule, with all its repression, violence and tyranny, now hangs over Sudan, but it is not too late to stop it, as it is possible through widespread popular protests and coordinated international pressure to force the generals to retreat and reverse the counter-revolution.
Although the experiences of some of the many similar countries in the region in this field were not promising, the authors speak, as was the case in Egypt when a military coup halted the democratic transition that occurred after the 2011 revolution, the revolutions of Tunisia in 2011 and Burkina Faso in 2014 were able to succeed in preventing The return of military rule.
Although the latest measures taken by Tunisian President Kais Saied are worrying, he implemented them without the help of the army, according to the newspaper.
decisive factor
The authors said that the decisive factor in the success of the coups in all the above-mentioned experiences was the size of the popular response. In Egypt, the forces of the revolution witnessed divisions by mid-2013, as many members of the secular wing supported the army openly, while supporters of the democratic government came out, including the Brotherhood Muslims, protesting the coup, but those protests did not succeed in forcing the generals to relinquish power.
In Burkina Faso, army officers from the old regime attempted to overthrow the democratic government a year after the revolution, but were met with a fierce popular response that included mass protests and strikes, forcing them to return power to civilians one week later.
The authors believe that there are many reasons for hope for the return of the democratic path in Sudan, including that the divisions within the ranks of the Sudanese Revolution Coalition are less severe than they were in Egypt.
In addition, the coup did not enjoy the support of only a few parties and former rebel groups in the Forces of Freedom and Change, which led the civilian part of the transitional government.
Also, only a small number of people participated in the presidential palace sit-in that took place a week before the coup and its organizers called for the army to intervene, and it was partly organized by the army itself.
On the other hand, the authors say that the coup was met with widespread popular rejection by most of the forces of the Sudanese revolution, and the leaders of the Sudanese Professionals Association called for peaceful protests, and others, including rebel leaders such as Abdel Wahed Al-Nur and Abdel Aziz Al-Hilu, followed suit.
The article concluded that a combination of factors, including popular protests and geopolitics, could thwart the coup. The massive popular protests that took place in Sudan yesterday, Saturday, increased pressure on the floundering generals, and if combined with strong pressure from abroad, it might make the generals retreat.