Introduction

As in many other Middle East and North Africa (MENA)countries, authoritarianism has been the mostprevailing reality in Sudan. Since independence in1956, different authoritarian regimes have ruledSudan for more than fifty-two years. Following theDecember 2018 uprising that ousted Omar al-Bashirafter three decades of autocratic rule, Sudanadopted a new hybrid mode of governance(civilian-military) for a four-year transitionalperiod. Less than two years into the transitionalperiod, post-uprising Sudan is, however, graduallydrifting away from democratisation and inchingcloser to a new form of authoritariangovernance.

Integrating scholarship across the fields ofcomparative politics (Bellin 2012; Brynen et al.2012b; Butcher and Svensson 2016; Liu 2015),security and surveillance studies (Akbari andGabdulhakov 2019; Deibert 2015; Jones 2019;MacKinnon 2011; Michaelsen 2017; Topak 2019; Uniacke2020) and international relations (Agathangelou andSoguk 2014; Alnasseri 2018; Brynen et al. 2012a;Lawson 2015), this chapter examines theauthoritarian practices of the Bashir Islamistregime and explores the evolving means ofauthoritarian control following the December 2018uprising.

Bashir used several authoritarian practices to controlthe population, including torture, targetedkillings, censorship, digital surveillance,repressive security laws, ethno-politics, foreignalliances, militias and paramilitary groups. One ofthe most coercive policies was known as Tamkeen (empowerment), whichenabled the Bashir Islamist party to have a stronghold on the state. Tamkeen policies sought to weaken civilsociety organising and political mobilisation bydeliberately purging public institutions, the army,the police and the judiciary of career bureaucratsperceived as disloyal (Hassan and Kodouda 2019).These policies also included targeting privatecompanies with oppressive economic measures to drivethem out of business. In many cases, senior membersof the Bashir Islamist party and the securityapparatus seized control of these businesses.

After three decades of Tamkeen, Sudan had a fragmentedpolitical opposition, a powerful coercive apparatusand a fragile civil society. Thus, many scholarsargued that it was unlikely to transition todemocracy. They also argued that the regime wouldsurvive, and Sudan would continue to have weakprospects for a popular uprising similar to those inother MENA countries. However, civil society waseventually able to bring the authoritarian militaryregime down, for reasons rooted in the veryauthoritarian nature of Bashir's autocracy.