Connect with us

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

The Transitioning Democracy of Sudan

Published

on

Spread the love

By Syed Zain Abbas Rizvi

Sudan has been the focus of conflict for much of its six decades as an independent nation. Despite being an anomaly in a region crippled with totalitarian populism and escalating violence, the country hasn’t witnessed much economic or political stability in years. While the civic-military coalition, leading a democratic transition towards elections, has managed to subside the fragments of civil war, growing hostility in the peripheries has begun threatening the modest reforms made in the past two years. The recent coup attempt is a befitting example of the plans that are budding within the echelons of the Sudanese military to drag the country back into the closet. And while the attempt got thwarted, it is not a success to boast. But it is a warning that the transition would not be as smooth a ride as one might have hoped.

The problems today are only a reflection of Sudan’s issues in the past: especially which led to the revolution. The civil unrest began in Sudan back in December 2018. Sudan’s long-serving ruler, Omer al-Bashir, had turned Sudan into an international outcast during his 30-year rule of tyranny and economic isolation. Naturally, Sudan perished as an economic pariah: especially after the independence of South Sudan. With the loss of oil revenues and almost 95% of its exports, Sudan inched on the brink of collapse. In response, Bashir’s regime resorted to impose draconian austerity measures instead of reforming the economy and inviting investment. The cuts in domestic subsidies over fuel and food items led to steep price hikes: eventually sparking protests across the east and spreading like wildfire to the capital, Khartoum.

In April 2019, after months of persistent protests, the army ousted Bashir’s government; established a council of generals, also known as the ‘Transitional Military Council.’ The power-sharing agreement between the civilian and military forces established an interim government for a period of 39 months. Subsequently, the pro-democracy movement nominated Mr. Abdalla Hamdok as the Prime Minister: responsible for orchestrating the general elections at the end of the transitional period. The agreement coalesced the civilian and military powers to expunge rebellious factions from society and establish a stable economy for the successive government. However, the aspirations overlooked ground realities.

Sudan currently stands in the third year of the transitional arrangement that hailed as a victory. However, the regime is now most vulnerable when the defiance is stronger than ever. Despite achieving respite through peace agreements with the rebels in Sudan, the proliferation of arms and artillery never abated. In reality, the armed attacks have spiraled over the past two years after a brief hiatus achieved by the peace accords. The conflict stems from the share of resources between different societal fractions around Darfur, Kordofan, and the Blue Nile. According to UN estimates, the surging violence has displaced more than 410,000 people across Sub-Saharan Africa in 2021. The expulsion is six times the rate of displacement recorded last year. According to the retreating UN peacekeeping mission, the authorities have all but failed to calm the rampant banditry and violence: partially manifested by the coup attempt that managed to breach the government’s order.

The regional instability is only half the story. Since the displacement of Bashir’s regime, Sudan has rarely witnessed stability, let alone surplus dividends to celebrate. Despite thawing relations with Israel and joining the IMF program, Sudan has felt little relief in return. The sharp price hikes and gripping unemployment which triggered the coup back in 2019 never receded: galloped instead. Currently, inflation runs rampant above 400%, while the Sudanese Pound has massively devalued under conditions dictated by the IMF. And despite bagging some success in negotiating International debt relief, the Hamdok regime has struggled to invite foreign investment and create jobs: majorly due to endemic conflicts that still run skin-deep in the fabric of the Sudanese society.

While the coup attempt failed, it is still not a sigh of relief for the fragile government. The deep-rooted analysis of the coup attempt reveals a stark reality: the military factions – at least some – are no longer sated in being equal-footed with a civilian regime. Moreover, the perpetrators tried to leverage the widening disquiet within the country by blocking roads and attempting to sabotage state-run media: hoping to gain public support. The population is indeed frustrated by the economic desperation; the failure of the coup attempt means that people have still not given up hope in a democratic government and a free-and-fair election. Nonetheless, it is not the first tranche of the army to rebel, and it certainly won’t be the last. The only way to salvage democracy is to stabilize Sudan’s economy and resolve inter-communal violence before leading the county towards elections. Otherwise, it is apparent that Bashir’s political apparatus is so deeply entrenched in Sudan’s ruling network that even if the transitional government survives multiple coups, an elected government would ultimately wither.

This Article was first published in Modern Diplomacy


Spread the love
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

Botswana Democratic Party’s Historic Loss: The Rise of Duma Boko and the Challenges Ahead

Published

on

By

Spread the love

From our Special Correspondent

The shock electoral defeat of Botswana’s long-dominant Botswana Democratic Party (BDP), led by President Mokgweetsi Masisi, has sparked surprise across neighboring states. The BDP, which has comfortably ruled Botswana since its independence in 1966, was decisively unseated in the national elections held on October 30, 2024. Of the 61 seats in the National Assembly, the Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) coalition secured 36 seats, followed by the Botswana Congress Party with 15 seats, while the Botswana Patriotic Front and the BDP managed only five and four seats, respectively, and one independent candidate claimed a seat. Botswana’s electorate chose Duma Boko, an opposition leader largely unknown beyond Botswana’s borders. Who is Duma Boko, what does he stand for, and what challenges will he face as he steps into his new role?

Who is Duma Boko?

Duma Boko, leader of the Botswana National Front and the driving force behind the UDC coalition, has established himself as a pivotal figure in Botswana’s opposition landscape. He played a central role in forming the UDC coalition in 2012, initially merging the Botswana National Front, Botswana Movement for Democracy, and Botswana People’s Party. For the 2024 elections, the coalition expanded to include the Alliance for Progressives.

A human rights lawyer with a degree from the University of Botswana and Harvard Law School, Boko is known for his strong advocacy of social justice and support for marginalized communities, including the Basarwa (San) people. Raised in the modest village of Mahalapye, 200 kilometers from the capital, Gaborone, Boko has built a reputation as a social democrat with a deep commitment to improving conditions for Botswana’s economically disadvantaged population.

Boko’s Vision and Campaign Promises

Botswana, a nation of 2.5 million people, grapples with high unemployment at 27.6% and a poverty rate of 38%. Boko’s campaign centered on addressing these pressing economic issues. His message resonated with the lower-income strata, focusing on economic diversification away from diamonds, which currently account for 90% of Botswana’s exports. He pledged to raise wages, student allowances, and pensions, and promised to prioritize issues affecting the youth, who make up about 70% of Botswana’s population.

As a human rights lawyer, Boko advocates for a humane and inclusive approach to governance. His commitment to social justice aims to confront the socio-economic challenges facing Botswana, especially for underrepresented communities. His pledge to address human rights issues, strengthen social protections, and drive economic reform has positioned him as a new hope for Botswana’s future.

The Challenges Awaiting Boko’s Government

  1. Combating Unemployment and Poverty:

The economic challenges facing Botswana are substantial. High unemployment and poverty levels worsened under the previous administration, and Boko’s government will need to find new strategies to create jobs and alleviate poverty across the country.

  1. Tackling Corruption and Reforming Institutions:

Corruption emerged as a defining issue during Masisi’s administration. Reports of government contracts benefiting his relatives and allegations of the Directorate on Intelligence and Security Services (DISS) obstructing anti-corruption investigations led to widespread mistrust. Restoring the independence and effectiveness of institutions like the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime and the judiciary will be crucial to rebuilding public confidence in governance.

  1. Healing National Divisions:

Botswana has experienced increasing division, partly due to regional and tribal biases in government appointments. The rift between Masisi and former President Ian Khama exacerbated these divisions, with DISS often at the center of their conflict. Boko’s government must prioritize national unity and build trust across Botswana’s diverse communities.

  1. Economic Transformation and Diversification:

With a global diamond market downturn affecting Botswana’s largest revenue source, Boko faces the daunting task of diversifying the economy to generate sustainable employment. His administration must find alternative revenue streams and industries to stabilize the economy and drive long-term growth.

The Path Forward for Botswana’s New Leadership

Duma Boko’s administration must approach these challenges with transparency, accountability, and a commitment to public consultation. His success will depend on the government’s ability to effectively involve citizens in decision-making processes and maintain robust checks and balances. By fostering public trust and empowering institutions to ensure accountability, Botswana has the opportunity to usher in a new era of equitable growth and development.

Boko’s vision reflects a shift toward social democracy in Botswana. His path to success, however, demands collaboration, resilience, and a fundamental transformation of the governance structures that have long defined the nation.


Spread the love
Continue Reading

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

The Pentagon’s THAAD Deployment in Israel: A Signal to Iran and the Question of Global Double Standards

Published

on

By

Spread the love

By Baba Yunus Muhammad

The Pentagon’s decision to bolster Israel’s air defense systems with a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, supported by 100 U.S. troops to operate it, sends a powerful message. The THAAD is designed to intercept ballistic missiles, with Iran clearly in the crosshairs. This deployment is an escalation, illustrating the United States’ unwavering support for Israel in its regional confrontations, particularly with Iran. But it also raises significant questions: Who stands with Iran in this looming confrontation? And does America’s uncritical backing of Israel expose its double standards on human rights and international law?

America’s Stance: Double Standards and Duplicity

The United States’ support for Israel has long been criticized as riddled with hypocrisy. While Washington postures itself as a global advocate for democracy and human rights, it continues to supply the arms that fuel Israel’s military machine, which has been implicated in the deaths of thousands of innocent Palestinian women, children, the elderly, and the infirm. The moral outrage America projects against other regimes, particularly in the Muslim world, is conspicuously absent when it comes to Israel’s transgressions. This duplicity reflects a clear bias that undermines America’s credibility as a global arbiter of justice.

One of the most troubling aspects of U.S. foreign policy is the selective application of international law. Israel, despite numerous violations of human rights, continues to receive billions in military aid annually. Meanwhile, countries like Iran are sanctioned, demonized, and isolated for far less egregious offenses. Is this about justice, or does Israel’s strategic importance in the Middle East render its violations invisible to Western eyes?

The Forgotten Two-State Solution

As the world watches the current crisis, one fundamental issue has been almost entirely ignored: the two-state solution. Once at the center of every peace process, the notion of a Palestinian state coexisting alongside Israel has been sidelined. Instead, the narrative is now dominated by military escalations, airstrikes, and defense systems. The right of Palestinians to self-determination, to a land they can call their own, is no longer part of the discourse.

Israel, with the tacit approval of its Western backers, continues to pursue its “Greater Israel” agenda. Settlements expand, Palestinian homes are demolished, and Jerusalem is increasingly Judaized, all in direct contravention of international law. The West’s silence on this is deafening. Why has the right of the Palestinians to a country of their own been so easily brushed aside in the name of ‘security’?

Iran: A Nation Standing Alone?

In this complex geopolitical landscape, Iran is portrayed as the villain. Yet, it is important to ask: does Iran truly stand alone? While it lacks a superpower willing to defend it from Israeli aggression, Iran is not without allies, both politically and ideologically. More importantly, as an Islamic republic, Iran’s identity is rooted in its faith, particularly in tawheed (the belief in the oneness of Allah) and its reliance on divine justice. Iran may not have the might of THAAD systems, but it has the conviction that Allah’s help is greater than any worldly power.

The strength of the Islamic faith is not found in military arsenals, but in the belief that the oppressed will eventually triumph over the oppressors. As history shows, superpowers come and go, but the power of the oppressed, united in their faith and resolve, can overcome even the most insurmountable odds. Iran, in its resistance against Israeli aggression and Western duplicity, is likely to turn to Allah for protection and justice, embodying the Qur’anic verse:

“And if you remain patient and conscious of Allah, their plot will not harm you at all. Surely Allah is fully aware of what they do.”** (Qur’an, 3:120)

This verse speaks to the resilience of those who trust in Allah against overwhelming odds. It is a reminder that no matter how powerful the aggressor, the ultimate victory lies with those who maintain their faith and stand firm in the face of oppression.

Other Critical Issues

There are additional issues worth considering. The first is the long-term impact of America’s military involvement in the region. By sending troops to operate the THAAD system, the U.S. is not just providing arms—it is becoming an active participant in the defense of Israel, making it complicit in whatever actions Israel takes. This blurs the line between defense and aggression, and America must ask itself whether it is willing to shoulder the moral responsibility for Israeli actions.

Secondly, the deployment of advanced defense systems like THAAD only exacerbates the arms race in the Middle East. As Israel strengthens its defenses, neighboring countries will feel compelled to enhance their own military capabilities, increasing the likelihood of conflict rather than reducing it.

Finally, the question of international accountability must be addressed. If Israel, with its advanced military capabilities and the backing of the world’s most powerful nation, continues to flout international law without consequence, what message does this send to other countries? Does might make right? And where does this leave global efforts to maintain peace and justice?

Conclusion

 The Pentagon’s THAAD deployment in Israel is a reminder of the dangerous escalations that are taking place in the Middle East, with Iran as the primary target. Yet, the broader context reveals a troubling picture of global double standards, where Israel is given a free hand to violate human rights while the rights of Palestinians are ignored. As Iran prepares to defend itself, it does so with the faith that no system, no army, no alliance is greater than the power of Allah. The verse from the Qur’an serves as a powerful reminder of where true strength lies: not in missiles, but in faith, patience, and the belief in divine justice.


Spread the love
Continue Reading

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

Escalating Conflict in the Middle East: Iran’s Retaliatory Strike against Israel and the Growing Regional Tensions

Published

on

By

Spread the love

The ongoing conflict in the Middle East continues to devastate countless lives, particularly in Gaza, Israel, and Lebanon. Recent escalations, including Iran’s ballistic missile strike on Israel, highlight a dangerous shift in the region’s dynamics. In this article Baba Yunus Muhammad delves into the circumstances surrounding Iran’s aggressive response, the motivations behind it, and the broader implications for regional stability. It also questions the role of global powers, particularly the United States, in perpetuating the conflict, while reflecting on the absence of a unified military alliance among Muslim nations to defend against Israeli aggression. 

The recent intensification of conflict between Israel, Gaza, and Lebanon has further deepened the tragic cycle of violence in the Middle East. The situation, marked by Israel’s military actions and retaliatory strikes from its adversaries, particularly Iran, is emblematic of decades of geopolitical tension, occupation, and armed confrontations.

Context of the Iranian Attack on Israel

Iran’s ballistic missile attack on Israel on October 2nd marked a sharp escalation in the broader conflict. This retaliatory strike was a direct response to Israel’s aggressive targeting of key Hezbollah and Hamas commanders. The killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Israel’s invasion of Lebanon pushed Tehran to act, signifying a growing frustration within Iran over perceived inaction. Iranian officials made it clear that the attack was not only defensive but also justified as a response to the increasing Israeli strikes across the region. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued the order, and the attack was supported by both the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and the Iranian defense ministry.

While Iran’s previous strike in April was seen as more symbolic, this latest assault was far more aggressive. It hit multiple urban centers, and Tehran claimed that 90% of its missiles reached their intended targets. Though the full extent of the damage is still unclear, this represents a significant shift in Iran’s strategy, moving from symbolic gestures to serious military reprisals.

Why Did Iran Retaliate?

Several reasons motivated Iran’s retaliation. First, the assassinations of Hezbollah and Hamas leaders by Israeli forces played a crucial role. Iran had already held off from responding to earlier provocations, particularly the assassination of Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh in July. Iranian officials believed this restraint, done in hopes of securing a ceasefire deal in Gaza, was a strategic mistake. Instead of quelling Israeli aggression, it rather emboldened Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to continue with escalations. Israeli strikes in Lebanon, coupled with the rhetoric from Netanyahu that recent actions aimed to “change the balance of power in the region,” convinced Iran’s leadership that not responding would further weaken their regional influence.

The Iranian response also reflects a growing divide within its leadership. Hardliners in Tehran, who felt that the country’s reputation as the leader of the “axis of resistance” was being undermined, viewed the lack of previous retaliation as a sign of weakness. This pressure led to the aggressive missile strike in October, highlighting that the country was ready for war if necessary. This response from Iran signals a turning point, where the threat of broader war no longer serves as a deterrent for Iran’s leadership.

US-Israel Relations and Broader Implications

The United States remains Israel’s staunchest ally, with its defense of Israeli actions viewed by many Muslim nations as part of a larger pattern of Western double standards. During Iran’s missile strike, US forces stepped in, intercepting some of the missiles, and US President Joe Biden dismissed the attack as “ineffective.” The unyielding support for Israel, however, continues to fuel resentment in the Muslim world, where many see this dynamic as part of an ongoing effort to suppress Muslim populations and movements.

The broader geopolitical context of this conflict cannot be ignored. While NATO is often lauded as a successful military alliance in the West, it is seen in many Muslim nations as a destabilizing force, responsible for chaos in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Iran’s frustration with NATO’s continued support of Israel, and its pivotal role in defending Israeli interests, underpins much of the animosity. Tehran views the Western military alliance as fundamentally biased, contributing to the marginalization and suffering of Muslim-majority countries.

The Role of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)

As the conflict escalates, a question often asked is: why doesn’t the Muslim world form a unified military response to counter Israeli aggression? The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the world’s second-largest intergovernmental body after the United Nations, has been relatively passive when it comes to creating an effective military coalition. Muslim countries, with their vast resources and manpower, could potentially form a powerful defense alliance, yet political fragmentation and differences in national interests have prevented such a coalition from materializing.

Historically, regional divisions, ideological differences, and varying levels of cooperation with Western powers have stifled the creation of a unified Muslim military front. The creation of a robust defense mechanism under the OIC remains elusive, as individual member states often prioritize their national interests over collective action. Nevertheless, the absence of such a coalition leaves Muslim populations across the region vulnerable to foreign aggression and continued conflict, with Israel benefiting from its military superiority and diplomatic support from the West.

If peace is ever to be realized in this volatile region, there must be a reevaluation of the global power dynamics, especially the role of the US and its unwavering support for Israel. At the same time, Muslim countries will need to overcome their internal divisions to form a unified front capable of protecting their interests against external aggressions. Until then, the cycle of violence is likely to continue, with devastating consequences for the people of Gaza, Lebanon, and Israel.

Baba Yunus Muhammad is the President of the Africa Islamic Economic Forum, Tamale, Ghana


Spread the love
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 Focus on Halal Economy | Powered by Africa Islamic Economic Forum