African soldiers and their appetite for political power

Soldiers in Sudan grew tired of sharing power with civilians they opted to go it alone. They were uncomfortable from the get-go. This power sharing arrangement was necessitated by circumstances which led to the toppling of Sudan’s long time ruler, Omar al-Bashir. The script was, the generals and civilians will share power and alternate the leadership of the country. However, like all marriages of political and military convenience on the continent, it was plagued with disagreements from the outset.

Reports of thwarted attempted military coups and demonstrations against the power sharing arrangement from some sections of the Sudanese people inflamed the tensions within the army as well as well between the generals and their civilian counterparts in government. The generals blamed civilians leaders for what they saw as dangerous security developments, while civilian leaders argued the military was doing all they can not to hand over power to them.

In the end, Sudan generals swept aside their civilian counterparts. This move was reported as a coup in the media. If so, then the continent has continued to provide an evolving understanding of what exactly is a coup. The ‘conventional’ understanding of a coup is when soldiers or civilians, with the help of soldiers remove the government in place, especially the man in charge. However, soldiers on the continent have not always played according to this tune. They have taken over power when there was no one to replace, as in the case of a dead president, they simply move into the ‘empty house’ and prevent the rest from getting in.

It could also be a Zimbabwe-like situation where soldiers removed one civilian ruler, replacing him with another civilian ruler without removing the party in power because their allegiances belong there too.

In the latest takeover in Sudan none of these things happened. The general in charge has remained the same, ready with a long list of new ministers, pointing to long term planning.

The justification the generals have provided for divorcing their civilian counterparts is that without such a move the country was headed to the civil war street. This is another hallmark of African military takeovers; the soldiers on the continent are always good at coming up with reasons for them being in charge or playing to certain political tunes in the streets.

This has been the reason why in many countries on the continent when soldiers takeover, no tears are shed for the strongman who has been replaced. There are jubilant celebrations in the streets with people praising soldiers for seizing power. They express hopes for a new beginning and a return to civilian rule. In the past, coups were seen as bad for democracy on the continent, however, the continued experiments with elections and civilian rule has changed this view. Countries on the continent hold elections like political rituals they have come to be to justify them being in power. These elections have been anything but fair. Once in charge, these civilian leaders who claim to have the people’s backing through elections have done a terrible job at the wheel.

Some of them made their name as opposition leaders or civil rights activists, turn into the people they replaced or worse. In some countries where there were term limits, these are removed for them to stay on indefinitely. The government and security forces are filled with people from the big man’s ethnic group or region or those who share his religion. The numbers of those who feel excluded, rise. When soldiers come knocking for their turn at the wheel, even in countries where the people have been disappointed by them before, they are given a second chance. How bad can it possibly get, right? This is why since 2017, of the eleven coups or attempted coups reported worldwide, ten of them were in Africa.

In Sudan, such justifications are lacking despite protests of rising living costs blamed on civilian leaders and their economic policies. The tensions between the generals and their civilian counterparts were of secondary importance. It points to dynamics within the armed forces, and the real possibility that these generals could have ended up being replaced by other generals.

A young woman protesting against a return to military rule being interviewed by a television reporter said that they had paid a steep price to do away with military rule, and they cannot just go back there. She said it was just unacceptable. In a country which was founded by a military man, and where soldiers have not only been among the most successful on the continent at replacing civilian rulers but have also ruled for longer periods than them, it is difficult to foresee a near future where soldiers stay out of politics regardless of how the latest round ends up.