Those Who Bear the Pain
Truth Perspective | Ibrahim Shglawi
Sudanese people have long used colloquial expressions that encapsulate entire stories in a word or two. In philosophy, such expressions are described as “comprehensive and exclusive,” as they succeed in penetrating the essence of meaning more effectively than lengthy speeches. Among these expressions is the phrase “Those Who Bear the Pain,” a description usually applied to those who are directly affected by an issue, who carry its costs and consequences. They are not merely observers or commentators on events; rather, they are part of them and partners in their outcomes.
For this reason, the invocation of this concept by the Chairman of the Sovereignty Council and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, General Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan, in his Eid address to the Sudanese people while speaking about the anticipated political dialogue, was nothing less than raising the question of political legitimacy: who has the right to sit at the national dialogue table and participate in shaping the country’s future, and to speak on behalf of the people in laying the foundations for the coming transition?
From this perspective, Al-Burhan’s speech acquires significance that goes beyond its immediate content, as it opens important questions regarding the nature of the next phase, the limits of participation in it, and the sources of legitimacy upon which it will be based. His reference to a comprehensive political dialogue within Sudan, involving those he called “Those Who Bear the Pain,” represents the most prominent conceptual key in the speech. Yet this concept does not stop at describing those affected by the war; it extends to redefining who possesses the right to political action at a time when the state is being rebuilt and its future is being shaped.
Since the outbreak of the war in April 2023, which was brought about by the coup attempt of the Rapid Support Forces militia and its local and regional supporters, the conflict in Sudan has unfolded on two parallel levels: a military struggle over control on the ground, and a political struggle over the legitimacy of representing the state and society. In this context, Al-Burhan’s speech appears to seek a shift in the center of gravity from the pressure of external platforms toward an internal legitimacy rooted in the suffering of Sudanese citizens themselves, and in the forces that remained inside the country throughout the years of war.
Likewise, the insistence that the dialogue be held within Sudan reflects a growing political orientation within governing circles, one that believes regional and international initiatives, despite their multiplicity, have failed to produce a sustainable settlement. Indeed, broad segments of public opinion have come to view some of these initiatives as extensions of regional power struggles rather than genuine responses to the complexities of the Sudanese reality.
Hence came the messages rejecting what Al-Burhan described as the dialogues of foreign capitals and external dictates, in an attempt to entrench an authentic political principle based on the independence of national decision-making and the relocation of the political process back into the country.
The significance of the speech is also linked to its political and military timing. The call for a comprehensive dialogue comes at a stage witnessing important field developments in favor of the Armed Forces on several fronts, granting the military institution greater room to move from the discourse of managing war to the discourse of managing the future.
From this angle, the call for dialogue can be viewed as an effort to establish a political track parallel to the military one, aimed at shaping the contours of the post-war state and producing a new national framework capable of transforming battlefield victories into sustainable legitimacy. Wars are not settled solely on battlefields; they are settled through the ability of the victors to build political consensus that reunites the nation and prevents the recurrence of conflict.
Yet the most complex challenge remains tied to the concept of “Those Who Bear the Pain” itself. Despite its strength and popular resonance, the term remains open to multiple interpretations. Does it refer to those harmed by the war, including the displaced, refugees, and families of victims? Does it include political forces that remained inside the country? Or local communities that have borne the social and economic costs? Or does it represent a political framework for excluding certain parties from participating in post-war arrangements?
The answer to these questions constitutes the foundation of any political process. The success of dialogue is not measured merely by gathering parties around a table, but by its ability to produce clear and fair standards for political representation. Hence emerges the need to move from the concept of political settlement to that of a social contract. Sudan has long faced a multi-layered state crisis, ranging from the structure of governance to the relationship between the center and the regions, and extending to issues of justice, citizenship, and the distribution of resources. These are issues that cannot be reduced to elite agreements; rather, they require a broad political process founded on genuine national consensus that brings all Sudanese together under the umbrella of the state.
We may conclude, according to Truth Perspective, that Al-Burhan’s speech reflects the beginning of a gradual transition from the discourse of war to the discourse of political foundation, a transformation of significant importance in the trajectory of the conflict. However, the success of this transition will depend on the ability of the state and national forces to transform the slogan “Those Who Bear the Pain” into an inclusive national project that connects sacrifice with the necessities of building the future. States emerging from war do not achieve stability through victory alone, but through their ability to transform sacrifices and bloodshed into a shared vision for the state, peace, and development.
Wishing you continued health and well-being.
Monday, June 1, 2026
Shglawi55@gmail.com