The Challenge of Confronting Deep Political Disagreements in Sudan
In the context of an ongoing war, the challenge extends beyond merely stopping the fighting. It requires addressing a set of deep-seated political disagreements that hinder serious efforts to end the conflict and prevent Sudanese political actors from even engaging in dialogue. These disagreements are not just about the immediate issues but are rooted in foundational questions that have remained unresolved since independence.
The current crisis is not primarily one of insufficient initiatives or ideas. Instead, it is defined by sharp divisions over concrete political questions that the war itself has brought to the forefront. Understanding these disagreements is essential for any meaningful effort to bring about a lasting peace.
Towards an Inclusive Sudanese Dialogue: Identifying the Core Disagreements
At a deeper level, Sudan’s long-running “war of visions” is rooted in foundational questions that have remained unresolved since independence. These include the nature of the state, the sources of legitimacy, civil-military relations, the reach of central authority, and the meaning of citizenship, among others.
From this perspective, today’s political disagreements are neither substitutes for Sudan’s foundational questions nor merely superficial disputes masking a straightforward contest for power. Rather, they reflect the interplay between competing interests and struggles for power, on the one hand, and deeper disagreements over the state, legitimacy, war, and political transition, on the other.
These disagreements constitute practical obstacles to preparing and convening an inclusive Sudanese dialogue. Addressing them cannot substitute for the wider foundational debate, but it may provide a necessary entry point for reducing the current political divide and creating conditions conducive to addressing those larger questions more constructively.
A Test of Consensus
Most Sudanese political and civil forces broadly agree, at least in principle, that a credible political process should begin with a ceasefire, protection of civilians, unhindered humanitarian access, and confidence-building measures, followed by movement towards a comprehensive political settlement. Yet this consensus is often closer to agreement on the sequence of steps than on the political conditions required to implement them.
Once discussion moves from broad principles to implementation, fundamental disagreements quickly re-emerge over the nature of the war and its parties, who should participate in the political process, and the principles on which that process should be based. The decision by some Sudanese political and civic actors to decline the Quintet’s invitation to a preparatory meeting in Addis Ababa offers a timely illustration of this.
The Purpose of This Paper
The purpose of this paper is not to debate the sequencing of the process itself, but to identify the political disagreements that make movement from one stage to the next so difficult. Nor does the paper seek to prescribe a model for dialogue, propose an alternative negotiating track, compete with existing initiatives or preparatory committees, obstruct their work, or diminish their importance.
Its purpose is more modest, yet arguably more fundamental: to offer an analytical framework for discussion with different political and societal constituencies in order to test a simple proposition: Do five core political issues—together with the overarching disagreement over the nature of the current war—constitute the principal obstacles preventing a meaningful Sudanese–Sudanese dialogue from getting underway?
Five Key Issues
Five issues appear to lie at the heart of the current political divide:
- The Rapid Support Forces (RSF)
- The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF)
- The current leadership of the SAF
- The political role of Islamists; and
- The role of regional and international actors.
As long as Sudanese political and societal forces remain deeply divided over these questions, attempts to prepare a Sudanese–Sudanese dialogue will remain fragile and vulnerable to breakdown at the first serious political test. Engaging these disagreements directly is therefore no longer an abstract intellectual exercise. It has become a practical requirement for any dialogue capable of contributing to an end to the war and opening the way towards a nationally agreed political process.
The Overarching Disagreement: How Do We Understand the April War?
The five issues are themselves embedded in a broader and more fundamental disagreement over the nature of the current war and the causes of its outbreak. Sudanese political and societal forces do not simply disagree over how the war should end. They begin from sharply different narratives about what the war is, who its principal actors are, and what drove it in the first place.
These competing narratives are not merely differences of interpretation. They reflect deeper divisions over the nature of the Sudanese state, the sources of political legitimacy, the role of the military establishment, the position of Islamists, and the limits and consequences of regional and international involvement. They also directly shape attitudes towards the belligerents, negotiations, and the kind of political process different actors believe should follow.
Recognizing Divergent Understandings
Recognising this does not mean that a future dialogue should begin by trying to impose a single narrative of the war, nor that participants must first settle competing interpretations of its origins. Such an approach could easily produce an endless contest over narratives. Rather, the point is to acknowledge that these different understandings exist, that they have helped shape political positions throughout the war, and that their effects cannot simply be wished away when designing a political process.
The task, therefore, is to clarify and unpack these disagreements—not in order to privilege one political position or narrative over another, but to identify the actual points of divergence that continue to obstruct dialogue. Serious dialogue does not begin by concealing differences or postponing them indefinitely. It begins by recognizing them and creating a structured political space in which they can be addressed.
The Path Forward
Experience suggests that Sudan’s problem is not a shortage of initiatives or diagnoses. It is the persistent inability to confront the issues over which the political community is actually divided. Attempts to bypass these disagreements, defer them, or treat them as secondary have repeatedly risked reproducing the very divisions they were intended to overcome.
This discussion paper does not offer ready-made solutions. Its purpose is to provide an initial framework for conversations with different Sudanese political and societal constituencies and to test whether the five issues identified above—together with the overarching disagreement over the nature of the war—do indeed constitute the principal obstacles to convening a meaningful Sudanese–Sudanese dialogue.
The challenge facing Sudanese actors today is therefore not simply to call for dialogue. It is to create the political conditions that make dialogue both possible and worthwhile. Between the continuation of Sudan’s war of visions and the emergence of a nationally agreed process capable of managing political diversity peacefully, the first step may be the most difficult: to name the real disagreements, confront them openly and responsibly, and begin treating them as an essential part of the path towards ending the war and building a shared national vision.
