Face of Truth: Burhan’s Speech: Is Sudan Entering a New Phase?

Ibrahim Shaglawi

In a step that suggests the war is nearing its end, the Chairman of the Transitional Sovereignty Council, General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, is working to lay the foundation for a new phase of stability and peace through political initiatives. However, this transformation does not come without challenges. His speech yesterday, at the conclusion of consultations among national political forces on the roadmap for Sudanese dialogue, conveyed a series of messages reflecting strategic shifts on key issues—particularly regarding his stance on peace, the Coordination of Civil Forces (Taqaddum), the National Congress Party, and armed militias, as well as the role of the army in the upcoming phase. In this article, we attempt to analyze his speech in light of its political implications.

Since the outbreak of the war, Burhan has sought to present himself as a national leader defending the state, which was evident in the opening of his speech, where he paid tribute to Sudan’s martyrs, both civilian and military. This gesture underscores his emphasis on restoring security and stability, but it also carries a political dimension, as he aims to solidify his image as a leader capable of managing the post-war period.

This notion is reinforced by his call for forming an independent national technocratic government to lead reconstruction efforts, economic reform, and the completion of judicial institutions. This idea has garnered support from political forces wary of party dominance over the transitional period. However, the main challenge remains whether such a government can operate independently of military influence, particularly given past experiences where military intervention in politics has often led to democratic stagnation. Despite Burhan’s assurances that the upcoming government will have full authority to structure itself—including forming advisory councils if it deems necessary—concerns persist.

One of the most controversial aspects of Burhan’s speech was his call to lift restrictions on passport renewals for opposition figures and open the door for reconciliation with those “returning to the national fold.” This was an implicit reference to groups such as Taqaddum, the Communist Party, and the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party led by Ali al-Rih al-Sanhouri, amid reports of his imminent return to the country alongside some other leaders.

This shift appears contradictory to Burhan’s previous stances, which outright rejected any rapprochement with those who supported armed militias or were involved in planning the coup that led to the war. While he refuses to negotiate with those who took up arms, he is now allowing their political backers to return to the scene. This inconsistency may undermine the principle of transitional justice, as any national reconciliation requires clear principles and standards, especially amid widespread calls for accountability against those involved in the Rapid Support Forces’ coup or war-related violations.

Burhan also confirmed that amendments to the constitutional document governing the transitional period are in their final stages, signaling Sudan’s imminent transition to a new phase. However, the lack of clear details on the content of these amendments and their implementation mechanisms raises questions about their inclusiveness, especially since different political forces have diverging views on the nature and duration of the transitional period.

Furthermore, Burhan stressed that democracy is the only viable path to stability, urging political forces to rely on the ballot box. However, this call necessitates a stable political environment and thorough preparation, which cannot be achieved without ending the war and ensuring that state resources are not exploited to manipulate election outcomes by any party.

Burhan did not outright reject the idea of a ceasefire and peace during his speech, but he conditioned it on the militias withdrawing from Khartoum and lifting the sieges on El Fasher, Babnousa, and other areas. Notably, he made no mention of implementing the Jeddah Agreement or resuming negotiations. He also stated that combatants should not have any political status and that fighting should be solely for Sudan’s sake, rejecting any fighters operating under partisan banners. This was a veiled reference to the mobilized youth fighting in support of religion, the nation, and the army.

In his speech, Burhan also launched sharp criticisms at the National Congress Party, despite including it among the Sudanese parties invited to wait for elections. He accused the party of “seeking power over the bodies of Sudanese citizens,” sparking widespread controversy, particularly among its supporters. In response, the National Congress Party issued a press statement reaffirming its stance on governance—emphasizing elections as the sole legitimate means of attaining power—while maintaining respect for Burhan’s leadership as head of state and expressing its continued support for the military institution. The statement also underscored the necessity of national unity during this critical phase.

It is clear that Burhan is trying to position himself as a statesman unaffiliated with any political faction, which is a positive approach. However, ignoring the political role of Islamists might be a miscalculated risk, given their historical influence on Sudan’s political landscape. Regional experiences, such as those of Tunisia and Egypt post-2011, have shown that sidelining Islamists without a comprehensive national consensus can lead to further polarization and instability.

Burhan’s speech reflects an attempt to strike a balance between maintaining power and reconciling with opposition forces. However, it lacks clarity on key issues, such as the mechanisms for ending the war—especially since he continues to emphasize military resolution—the future role of the armed forces in politics, which is expected to be addressed in the constitutional document, and guarantees for democratic transition and peaceful power transfer.

Ultimately, from the perspective of Face of Truth, the Sudanese people remain the primary force in determining the country’s trajectory. If this transition is to be genuine and sustainable, it must be based on a comprehensive national vision that ensures justice, guarantees meaningful political participation for all, and steers Sudan away from zero-sum conflicts. The next phase requires more than just political speeches—it demands tangible actions that restore the people’s trust in their future, free from contradictions that could hinder the transition process.

Wishing you all well and in good health.
Sunday, February 9, 2025
Shglawi55@gmail.com