Problems and demonstrations that began several months before the coup in Sudan sparked the speculation, especially with countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as well as Sudanese military, that Sudan is also going to experience the same fate as Egypt or Tunisia, or conditions for the emergence of Islamists are provided. Thus, states such as Saudi Arabia reacted to this process, while political groups and the military also showed reaction to the geopolitical nature of Sudan. Like Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, Army troops too were concerned that the protests in Sudan would end up in situations like what that occurred in Egypt and Tunisia.
It should be noted that in these countries, when it comes to Islamic movements, they mainly mean the Muslim Brotherhood, and therefore the fear of the regional states and the army prompted a quasi-coup in Sudan. However, given the tendency of the Sudanese people to Islam, Muslim Brotherhood could be an alternative to take control of the government in Sudan although the power of the army cannot be overlooked in this regard and it seems that part of the military are trying to prevent Muslim Brotherhood from coming into power in the African state.
News reports also indicate that the coup leaders had previously visited Saudi Arabia where they had received the tacit support of the Riyadh government. In fact, what happened in Sudan was a veto coup d’état, in the sense that the people were protesting and were after achieving some of their democratic demands, but the army entered the field and part of their demands were practically ignored.
Hence, we noticed that immediately after the coup, the people of Sudan had the impression that many of their demands raised during the protests had not been realized and a dictator had gone, but despotism remained. Some time ago, the military announced that they would hold power only for two years but due to civil society and regional pressures and the existing structures they decided to form a coalition government comprising popular, political and military groups.
Regarding the future developments in Sudan it must be noted that what occurred was a veto coup, that is to say what happened in Sudan, or the issue that led to a coup or quasi coup d’état in this country, go back to a number of factors and reasons such as the ineffectiveness of the political system of Omar al-Bashir government, as well as his actions over the past few years on foreign policy among other issues.
With these interpretations, we will probably not see the formation of a democratic atmosphere in Sudan, since under the rule of Omar al-Bashir, the political parties did not have the space to pursue their demands.
Therefore, concerning Sudan, it is likely that conditions like Egypt, namely, the authority of the military, will prevail. This is also due to insecurity in the region, the geopolitical importance of the country and the problems of Sudan. In this way, democracy issues such as the development or opening up of the political arena would not be much considered, and security issues would be significant. For this reason, the military has taken over.
It should also be borne in mind that the political opening up in North Africa, the demands of the people, and the transformation in information dissemination cannot create a lasting condition for the military which could survive for decades like many authoritarians in North Africa.
In fact, structural pressures will force them to accept many facts. So, in the future, democracy will probably be shaped in Sudan overnight, and since there are no structural components in this country, the desired future of democracy fans will not take shape there. Of course, the Sudanese society, due to the diversity of ideologies and the diversity of political nature, can partly help to open up the political environment, although in Sudan we see development from above while this type of development is not very consistent with the process of democracy.