Truth Perspective: Sudan… The Dilemma of Silent Partition

Ibrahim Shaglawi

Has the country entered a phase of silent partition taking shape behind closed doors, away from the Sudanese people? Political experiences confirm that states do not usually split through a sudden declaration of independence; rather, they fragment through a cumulative process in which central state institutions gradually retreat in favor of parallel authorities that, over time, acquire the legitimacy of a fait accompli.

This is what makes the current developments in Darfur and Kordofan extremely dangerous, extending beyond the consequences of the ongoing war between the Sudanese Army and the Rapid Support Forces militia. The present scene clearly reveals a process of reshaping power, influence, and political geography in our country, given the intersection of military calculations with regional and international interests, and the overlap of domestic projects with external agendas.

Since the signing of the Nairobi Charter in February 2025, the “Ta’sees” Alliance has moved from the stage of military and political coalition-building to the stage of constructing parallel governing institutions. A presidential council, a council of ministers, a security and defense council, arrangements for a new army, police agencies, a currency council, educational institutions, and, most recently, secondary school certificate examinations and universities. These are not measures associated with wartime conditions; they are components of an authority seeking to establish itself as an alternative to the existing state.

In political science, the danger of secession is not measured by a declaration of independence, but by the extent to which the emerging entity can monopolize state functions within its geographical domain. The more these functions expand and institutions are established, the more the transition from regional rule to political separation becomes a matter of time and favorable circumstances. Perhaps the agendas and ambitions of the regional and international environment are working to create such circumstances.

Therefore, the most dangerous development today is not the formation of a parallel government, but the construction of a complete system of governance attempting to reproduce itself politically, administratively, socially, and economically, independent of the central state. Organizing examinations, for example, is not merely an educational matter; it carries a political message that there is an authority capable of managing the future of generations and shaping their institutions away from Khartoum.

More alarming is that these developments are unfolding within a regional and international environment driven by ambition. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, warned that external interventions and the flow of weapons contribute to prolonging the war and complicating paths toward a settlement. Likewise, Marco Rubio described the war last week as a proxy war in which the interests and agendas of multiple external powers intersect.

Between these two statements, a reality emerges: Sudan is no longer merely an arena of internal conflict; it has become part of a broader network of regional and international competition.

From this perspective, it appears evident that some forces coveting Sudan’s resources and strategic location have realized that controlling a united Sudan is difficult. They have therefore shifted to an alternative strategy based on weakening the central state and producing fragile political entities that are easier to influence. Political history in Africa and the Middle East offers many examples of fragmentation projects that did not begin with calls for separation, but rather with the consolidation of political, economic, and security realities that eventually culminated in secession.

In this context, Darfur is no longer merely a region experiencing war; it has become an arena in which the foundations of a parallel authority are taking shape, combining military influence through organized logistical support, civil administration, and economic institutions, bringing it gradually closer to the characteristics of an independent political entity, even without an official declaration.

Yet responsibility does not rest solely on the army and armed movements. The paradox is that Sudanese political forces still seem more preoccupied with their old disputes than with the existential threat facing the Sudanese state. While the construction of a new reality accelerates in western Sudan, political elites continue to reproduce the same failures in their worst forms: polarization, division, and the inability to produce a comprehensive national project capable of addressing the historical roots of the crisis and rebuilding the nation.

Likewise, community forces, traditional administrations, and intellectual elites are required to move from the position of anxious spectators to that of active participants. Preserving Sudan’s unity is no longer the responsibility of the government or the army alone; it has become a comprehensive national responsibility requiring everyone to build a societal front that defends the state and rejects turning Sudanese diversity into a project of political fragmentation.

As for the national media, its role at this stage goes beyond news coverage to the creation of awareness. The real challenge lies in exposing the long-term consequences of the war, reading beyond daily events with vigilance, and alerting public opinion that the most dangerous threats are those that form silently until they appear natural and familiar.

According to #Truth_Perspective, Sudan today stands at a critical moment in its history. The danger of partition has become a process whose features are already taking shape on the ground as the war continues, the political vacuum widens, and external interventions increase.

Hence, responsibility falls upon the political leadership, state institutions, national and community forces, and the media to unite around one objective: protecting the country and preserving the unity of its territory. Nations are not lost all at once; they erode when their people fail to recognize danger in time. The opportunity still exists, but it is narrowing with time, before the dilemma of silent partition turns into a reality against which warnings will be of no avail.

Wishing you continued health and well-being.

Tuesday, June 2026 Shglawi55@gmail.com