The Sudanese Army: Military Doctrine and the Absence of the State (Part 2)

 By Ameer Babiker Abdalla Saad

The emergence of the Sudanese "state" into the stage of independence as an inevitable reality, without a comprehensive doctrine, led to consequences, the most striking of which was the first rebellion in 1955, on the eve of the declaration of independence. It concluded with the secession of the South and the establishment of an independent State.

When using the term "doctrine," the mind immediately jumps to something sacred, religious, or ideological, which often causes confusion and muddles the Sudanese scene at all levels—political, social, military, economic, and intellectual—essentially encompassing what constitutes the comprehensive doctrine of the state.

The states entry into independence, without a guiding comprehensive doctrine, coincided with a significant transformation in military power, shifting from the Sudan Defense Force to the Sudanese Armed Forces. There is no doubt that the military doctrine of any nations armed forces derives its principles and values from the states doctrine. Here, doctrine is not religious or ideological, as it may seem at first, but rather the social contract mutually agreed upon by all citizens—people who were either forced or voluntarily chose to live under one state. At the top of this contract is the recognition of full citizenship for all, with rights and duties, and the resulting mutual responsibilities between the state and its institutions, between the state and the citizen, and between the states institutions and the citizen.

 The states comprehensive doctrine is represented in the constitutional principles agreed upon by all, principles that take into account the representation of all segments of society and their interests without exception or special immunity. These principles are upheld by constitutional law, which interprets them and works to apply and implement their provisions. Since the constitution is the highest authority in the state, inspired by the spirit and texts of these principles, its absence signifies the absence of the state and, thus, the absence of its doctrine and the foundation for regulating and expressing its citizens.

 As long as this article is based on the idea that Sudanese people in "this piece of land" did not have the choice to remain united, they must explore the common factors that brought them together within the state and how to coexist peacefully within its borders, as long as this serves their collective interests. The first step toward achieving this is to agree on constitutional principles and constitutional law, which, clearly, has been absent since independence. This absence has led to repercussions that continue to cast a shadow over the path of peace and unity. One sign of this absence is the continuous talk about the importance of holding a constitutional conference, which emphasizes this critical absence. After that, there must be agreement on and consent to the governing constitutional principles and law, followed by presenting them in a general referendum. It is not forgotten that the Sudanese national state has been governed by temporary constitutions to guide governance and provide it with necessary legitimacy, rather than to build and regulate the state and its institutions permanently. Since this situation serves the interests of some factions—whether many or few—the path to establishing permanent constitutional principles has remained difficult and always faces opposition.

 In such a "temporary" situation for the state, discussions about military doctrine without a comprehensive understanding of the overall picture are incomplete. This raises the same question: Is the military doctrine of the Sudanese Armed Forces agreed upon and derived from the states comprehensive doctrine? A subsidiary question follows: Is the military responsible for formulating the states comprehensive doctrine in its absence?

 Neither this question nor its subsidiary counterpart will be answered by over sixty years of post-independence rule in the name of the military institution or the first statement made in the name of the armed forces. However, it will place us face-to-face with the truth that we are still following the path of a state that forces its people to coexist through coercion, not mutual agreement. This is not because the military and its institution have the responsibility or duty to formulate the states comprehensive doctrine "alone," but because they have been used to obstruct the building of a state governed by law and constitution. The military has been used, each time the first statement is made in its name, to rewrite the "temporary" constitution in a way that aligns with the interests of those in power.

 If it is widely accepted and natural for the militarys doctrine to derive from the states comprehensive doctrine, two main factors have played a crucial role in shaping and fluctuating this doctrine. The first, as I mentioned, is the absence of the states comprehensive doctrine itself, and the second is the states adoption of a temporary doctrine governed by the visions of the ruler who comes to power, often blurring or deliberately erasing the boundaries between the state and power, serving partial interests rather than the whole.

 Here, it is essential to distinguish between two things: military doctrine and the professional duty of the armed forces. Military doctrine is the military ideology adopted by the state to build and establish its army and set its general strategy. Experts define military doctrine as "a set of values and intellectual principles aimed at establishing the theories of military science and the art of war, to determine the structure and uses of the armed forces in times of peace and war in a way that achieves national goals and interests." It is a comprehensive project that involves the highest levels of the state down to the smallest soldier, aimed at ensuring security and protecting national interests. Meanwhile, the militarys professional duty is governed by the states military doctrine and is based on the pillars of combat doctrine, which involves planning, training, armament, military tactics, and moral mobilization during military tasks. As the weapons used by the armed forces vary, the levels of professional duty differ depending on the type of weapon, ultimately serving the overall goal of military doctrine.