Who can lead Sudan out of its crisis?

The coexistence of the SAF and RSF within Sudan’s political landscape seems increasingly untenable.

As the Sudanese people endure relentless bombing, destruction and displacement, the prospect of a peace agreement or ceasefire appears increasingly remote.

Sudan, a nation with a complex history of colonial legacy, ethnic diversity, and political instability, is now facing one of the gravest crises in its history. The ongoing power struggle between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces has turned what was meant to be a political transition into a full-blown humanitarian disaster.

With hundreds of thousands displaced, cities devastated, and the social fabric torn apart, the critical question remains: Who can solve Sudan’s crisis? Can the army or the RSF lead the country to peace, or does the solution lie in moving beyond their influence entirely?

The conflict between the SAF, led by Gen. Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan, and the RSF, commanded by Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (known as Hemedti), erupted in April 2023. Although the two sides were allies during the transitional period following the ousting of President Omar Bashir in 2019, their rivalry over power strained their relationship to breaking point.

The SAF represents Sudan’s traditional military institution, historically tied to the country’s political elite and shaped by the ideological leanings of those in power. The RSF, on the other hand, evolved from the infamous Janjaweed militias into a semi-independent force with extensive economic interests and a reputation for violence. Their power struggle is not merely a battle for control but reflects deeper issues of governance, legitimacy, and Sudan’s future.

Who can lead Sudan out of its crisis? This question defines the current phase of Sudan’s turmoil. Is the SAF, which sees itself as the country’s legitimate authority, the answer? Or is it the RSF, portraying itself as the savior of the Sudanese people? Perhaps a third force, likely external, could emerge as the driving and guaranteeing entity for a resolution. Exploring these forces and their potential solutions sheds light on the challenges ahead.

Historically, the SAF has played a dominant role in Sudanese politics, frequently intervening in civilian governance through coups. While it portrays itself as a defender of Sudan’s sovereignty, much of its history is marred by corruption, mismanagement, and human rights abuses.

Despite these flaws, the SAF holds certain advantages. It boasts experience, organization, and a hierarchical structure capable of maintaining order. Internationally, it retains a measure of recognition as Sudan’s “official” military force, lending it some legitimacy among regional and global actors.

However, the SAF faces significant challenges. Public trust has been eroded after decades of authoritarian rule and repression. Internal divisions within the army weaken its capacity to govern effectively. Moreover, civilian opposition views the SAF as a barrier to democratic transition and reform.

The RSF wields considerable influence, thanks to its decentralized structure, economic resources, and aggressive tactics. Hemedti has sought to portray the RSF as a popular force defending marginalized communities, particularly in Darfur.

The RSF’s strengths lie in its flexibility and resources. Its decentralized structure enables it to maintain a strong presence across various regions of Sudan. It has also garnered support in marginalized areas such as Darfur by presenting itself as an alternative to Khartoum’s political elite. Furthermore, the RSF has built international networks through its control of mining sectors and mercenary services.

Nonetheless, the RSF faces critical challenges. Accusations of human rights violations, particularly in Darfur, severely undermine its legitimacy. The RSF also lacks institutional depth, as it does not possess the bureaucratic frameworks needed to govern effectively. Additionally, its predominantly Arab composition exacerbates ethnic tensions in a diverse country.

Can peace be achieved with both forces in power? The coexistence of the SAF and RSF within Sudan’s political landscape seems increasingly untenable. Previous attempts at power-sharing, such as the transitional government that collapsed in 2021, have repeatedly failed. Both Al-Burhan and Hemedti remain resolute in their positions, rejecting ceasefires and negotiations.

This mutual hostility underscores the barriers to a joint solution. Chief among these is the profound lack of trust between the two factions, each viewing the other as an existential threat. The complex political landscape, involving civilian actors, tribal alliances, and international pressures, further complicates any potential settlement. Regional powers backing the rival factions only deepen the conflict and hinder peace efforts.

Despite these obstacles, some hope lies in the possibility of international and regional pressure leading to a short-term peace agreement. Such an accord might involve power-sharing arrangements that limit mutual influence. Security sector reforms, including the integration of the RSF into the SAF, could form part of this framework, as advocated by the international community. Including civilian actors as mediators might also ease tensions.

However, these scenarios require genuine political will and commitment — qualities that appear absent at present. Achieving such a solution feels more like a distant dream. As the conflict drags on, some argue that the only path to peace and stability in Sudan lies in the removal of one faction.

If the RSF were to defeat the SAF, it might bring an end to the armed conflict, but it would leave Sudan under a regime lacking legitimacy and institutional capacity. Such a scenario could entrench militia rule, making the country vulnerable to unregulated military and economic networks.

Conversely, if the SAF were to eliminate the RSF, it could restore centralized state control. However, this would come at a high social cost, deepening divides among Sudan’s communities. It might also lead to a return to absolute military rule, sidelining civilian forces.

Given the current trajectory, Sudan faces several potential outcomes. Firstly there is the real danger of an escalating civil war with continued fighting leading to further destruction, displacement, and the emergence of new armed groups, complicating the crisis.

Secondly, international intervention could take place with global powers stepping in militarily or politically to impose a settlement, though such interventions carry long-term risks.

Thirdly, a partition of the country is possible, but this could deepen divisions resulting in Sudan fragmenting into multiple territories controlled by different factions.

Fourthly, a revival of the peace process, the most difficult yet hopeful scenario, which would involve intense international pressure and mutual concessions.

Sudan stands at a pivotal moment in its history. The conflict between the SAF and RSF reflects deeper crises stemming from decades of unstable governance.

While a resolution seems elusive, the country’s future depends on the ability of Sudanese, regional, and international actors to devise a political formula that prevents further collapse and paves the way for stability and development.

• Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy has covered conflicts worldwide. X: @ALMenawy