The Truth Perspective: The Making of a President
Ibrahim Shaglawi
The making of presidents in today’s world is a complex equation in which the will of the people intersects with internal and external power balances and political calculations. Major capitals may influence political trajectories, support certain options, and attempt to engineer transitions in line with their interests, but they cannot manufacture lasting legitimacy. A president who lacks national acceptance remains hostage to exceptional circumstances, because his position is not merely about holding power, but about his role in shaping the future of the state.
Last Monday, the Chairman of the Sovereignty Council and Commander-in-Chief of the Sudanese Armed Forces, General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, met with the leaders of the Democratic Bloc in Khartoum, reaffirming his commitment to launching a Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue. He pledged not to interfere in its outcomes while providing the necessary guarantees for the return of political forces and creating a conducive environment for dialogue. Simultaneously, with parallel political discussions taking place in Nairobi on arrangements for ending the war and the future of the political process, domestic calls intensified. These were initiated by Mohamed Al-Amin Turk, Chairman of the High Council of Beja Nazirates, and later supported by other political forces, urging that al-Burhan be mandated as President of the Republic and that the Sovereignty Council be dissolved.
This coincidence reflects Sudan’s entry into a phase of redistributing political influence in preparation for the next stage, where the struggle over the shape of power has become no less important than the battle on the ground. Meanwhile, the Nairobi meetings present a vision based on a civilian partnership during the transitional period. However, this vision faces a complex political reality, as broad segments of society believe that the “Sumoud” alliance has lost ground because of the positions of its components during the war and what is perceived as coordination with the Rapid Support Forces’ project, in addition to the political responsibility that some attribute to its leaders for the collapse of the transitional process. Therefore, many argue that any future political role should be preceded by a transitional justice process that guarantees a fair trial and the right to defense, so that justice becomes the foundation of reconciliation rather than a cover for exclusion or impunity.
In my view, the greatest mistake is to reduce the entire scene to the question of whether al-Burhan should be mandated or not. The issue is not the mandate itself, but the creation of a new legitimacy for the state. The presidency is merely one outcome of the settlement, while the essence of the conflict lies in who sets the rules and who possesses the authority to shape the political landscape.
On another front, the joint political symposium held on Tuesday in Omdurman by the National Umma Party and the Democratic Unionist Party (Original) acquired significant importance. It represented the first organized political appearance of the two parties inside the country since the outbreak of the war, potentially signaling the beginning of the return of traditional political forces to the post-war equation. Their agreement on the principles of Sudanese dialogue, the unity of the state, the rejection of exclusion, and preparedness for elections sends a message that parties with broad social constituencies seek to reclaim their role in shaping the next phase rather than leaving the political arena confined to military actors or wartime alliances.
Conversely, reading the international position requires realism. Developments since the outbreak of the war have shown no fundamental objection to al-Burhan’s continued role. Rather, most initiatives have dealt with him as an indispensable party. Nevertheless, the international community links the stability of the transitional period to the presence of a civilian umbrella that broadens political acceptance. Regional powers, meanwhile, approach Sudan through the strategic calculations of the Red Sea, the Horn of Africa, and Arab security, making their influence over the shape of the future authority an ongoing factor through negotiations and alliances. Yet, no matter how extensive external influence may become, it cannot create legitimacy without national acceptance.
One of the paradoxes of the war is that it has reshaped Sudan’s internal political landscape. The Islamist movement has reorganized its ranks and emerged as one of the actors that cannot be ignored in any political equation, explaining the keenness of some international and regional actors to build balances that prevent any single current from dominating power. At the same time, Islamist leaders, including Dr. Amin Hassan Omar, have declared that they do not seek to participate in a transitional authority without a popular mandate, shifting the debate from a conflict over representation to a conflict over legitimacy.
Accordingly, the most likely scenario is the continuation of al-Burhan’s leadership of the state throughout the remainder of the transitional period, whether through the existing framework of the Sovereignty Council or through a consensual presidential formula determined by the outcomes of the Sudanese-Sudanese dialogue, alongside broadening political participation leading to general elections that restore legitimacy through the ballot box. This path remains the one most consistent with the balance of power produced by the war and the most capable of securing regional and international acceptance, without overlooking the reality that the center of political and military decision-making now lies within the country.
Finally, according to #The_Truth_Perspective, Sudan’s battle is not merely about how a president is made, whether through the Sovereignty Council or through the Presidency of the Republic, nor about who will hold the keys to shaping that office. The making of a president is, in essence, the making of the state itself, reflecting the balance of power, the will of the people, and the limits of external influence. The region and the international community will continue to be influential actors, but experience has proven that lasting legitimacy cannot be granted from abroad; it must be built through a national will capable of managing diversity and disagreement within a comprehensive constitutional framework. Only then will the making of a president become a genuinely Sudanese decision, and the post-war victory will belong to the state rather than to individuals.
Wishing you continued good health and well-being.
Thursday, July 23, 2026
Shglawi55@gmail.com