Sudan’s Power Struggle: When Civilian Control Becomes Military Distrust

The explosive accusation from a former Bashir aide reveals the dangerous fault lines that continue to plague Sudan’s fragile democratic transition.

The Context of Competing Powers

Sudan’s post-Bashir era has been marked by an uneasy partnership between civilian leaders and military forces, a delicate balance that emerged after the 2019 revolution that ended Omar al-Bashir’s three-decade rule. The transitional government, led by Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok from 2019 to 2022, was tasked with navigating this treacherous path toward democracy while managing the entrenched interests of Sudan’s powerful security apparatus.

The accusation that Hamdok’s government deliberately sought to weaken the military reflects a fundamental tension in post-authoritarian transitions: how do civilian governments assert control over military institutions that have long dominated political life? In Sudan’s case, this challenge was particularly acute given that the military had not only been the backbone of Bashir’s regime but also played a pivotal role in his removal.

Unpacking the Allegation

While the former aide’s claims must be viewed through the lens of potential bias and political motivations, they highlight real structural conflicts that existed within Sudan’s transitional arrangement. The power-sharing agreement between civilians and military leaders was always fragile, with each side harboring suspicions about the other’s ultimate intentions. Civilian leaders faced the legitimate concern of preventing a return to military dictatorship, while military officials worried about losing their privileged position and facing accountability for past actions.

These tensions came to a head in October 2021 when General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan led a military coup that dissolved the transitional government, arrested Hamdok, and effectively ended Sudan’s democratic experiment. The coup was justified by military leaders as necessary to prevent the country from sliding into chaos, but critics saw it as a naked power grab by generals unwilling to cede control.

The Broader Implications

This allegation, whether true or not, illuminates a critical challenge facing democratic transitions worldwide: the civil-military relations dilemma. In countries emerging from authoritarian rule, civilian governments must somehow establish authority over military institutions without triggering a backlash that could derail the entire democratic project. Too aggressive an approach risks provoking a coup; too passive an approach leaves democratic institutions vulnerable to military interference.

Sudan’s experience offers sobering lessons for other transitioning democracies. The failure of the civilian-military partnership demonstrates how quickly democratic gains can be reversed when trust breaks down between key stakeholders. It also underscores the importance of international support and pressure in sustaining democratic transitions, particularly in countries where military institutions have deep roots in political and economic life.

As Sudan continues to grapple with political instability and humanitarian crises, the question remains: can any civilian government successfully manage military power without either capitulating to it or provoking its violent opposition? The answer may determine not just Sudan’s future, but offer crucial insights for democratic movements across Africa and beyond.