Introduction
It has not been easy to fully grasp the political and social circumstances that gave rise to the Sudanese Resistance Committees’ experience and the factors that shaped their evolution from 2013 to the April 2023 war. This article examines the political environment that defined the reality of these committees and highlights the major shifts in their relationship with political parties during the transitional period. Additionally, it addresses three interrelated challenges concerning this relationship, using political participation as an analytical framework.
From Grassroots Movements to Political Organizations
The October 25 coup was a critical juncture in the history of the Resistance Committees. It redefined their roles and could be seen as the peak of their development, as their scope of activities broadened. Some committees attempted to institutionalize themselves through “grassroots building” processes. However, most failed to complete this process due to the novelty of the experience and the absence of a well-defined political culture to guide them.
The coup created a highly complex situation, dividing civilian forces into those supporting a settlement with the military and those opposing it, accusing others of betraying the revolution. Amid this intricate climate, Resistance Committees in both the capital and the states moved forward to draft political charters expressing their perspectives on the political process.
By drafting these political charters, the committees naturally transformed into political actors with a defined vision, gaining widespread recognition and acceptance within the protest movement. However, rather than capitalizing on this newfound support to establish alliances with other civilian groups, many committees focused primarily on their internal affairs, often disregarding potential allies and partners. For example, some committees refused to coordinate their protest routes with other civilian groups, leading to less effective mobilization against the military council. This inward-looking approach resulted in friction with certain FFC parties and a departure from their initial focus on grassroots mobilization and community-based action. Consequently, their organizational capacities weakened, and they shifted from a position of leadership and initiative to one of reaction.
A key lesson from the political charter experience is that a rapid shift toward direct political action requires intermediary stages. These stages should involve redefining the committees’ visions and roles, strengthening their organizational capacities, formulating regulations for their operations, and democratically electing their leaders to ensure genuine grassroots representation. Such measures would help eliminate dominance, foster openness to others, and facilitate learning from external experiences.
From Peaceful Resistance to Political Violence
The Sudanese revolution stood out for its reliance on peaceful resistance, inspired by the uprisings of 1964 and 1985. This approach, pivotal to the regime’s fall in April 2019, neutralized violence, exposed violations, and garnered widespread support.
However, some groups adopted violent tactics to confront security forces during protests. Notable among them were “Gadboon (Angery) Without Border” and “Melok Aleshtibakat”. This violence was not limited to police forces but extended to attacks on events organized by civil forces advocating democratic transition. Following the outbreak of war between the Sudanese Military and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), these groups chose armed resistance against the RSF, potentially undermining the tradition of peaceful resistance as a pathway to democracy.
Focusing solely on violence as the primary form of resistance led to high casualties, loss of life, decreased youth engagement in activism, and reduced revolutionary activity in certain groups.
Competition Between Political Parties and Resistance Committees
In Khartoum, some members of the Resistance Committees are affiliated with political parties, though most committees in other states are largely party-aligned. Politically affiliated members in Khartoum claim to separate their party views from the committees’ work, but competition among parties to control the Coordination Bodies (Tansiqiyat) is evident. These bodies play a key role in collective decision-making for protests, including gathering points, routes, and destinations.
This competition extends to broader revolutionary dynamics between committees and political parties. Many argue that Resistance Committees are not independent of political parties, with some committees acting as fronts for specific party agendas in certain regions.
Some committees have discussed proposals to establish a party that includes young members of the resistance committees. This can be interpreted as a sign of their growing distrust in political parties seeking power, which has heightened the parties’ concerns about their position in the political landscape.
This rivalry has led to several negative outcomes. First, the Committees were thrust into the political arena without experience. Second, unnecessary competition among political actors became widespread, with some questioning whether the committees would replace existing political parties. Lastly, elevating the Committees to an untouchable status has limited open space for debate to rise above criticism.
Conclusion
The Sudanese Resistance Committees faced significant challenges in evolving as pro-democracy actors, including organizational inexperience, a lack of democratic culture, internal divisions, and competition with political parties. Some factions’ shift to violence further weakened the movement. These difficulties underscore the complexity of transitioning from mobilization to political action and the need for strong organizational capabilities and clear relationships with formal political structures. Learning from these experiences is essential for the future success of resistance movements in Sudan.
Mussab Osman is an experienced researcher and program associate at the Al-Ayam Center for Cultural Studies & Development (ACCSD). He specializes in community engagement, policy development, and nonviolent action in war-affected areas. He has a proven track record of leading research projects and facilitating dialogue to drive political and social change in Sudan. Passionate about empowering marginalized communities, advocating for human rights, and promoting democracy, Mussab implements strategic initiatives that foster peace and resilience.
