Sudan’s Power Struggle: When Weakening the Military Becomes a Democratic Necessity—or a Fatal Mistake

The accusation that Sudan’s transitional government sought to weaken its own military exposes the central paradox of democratic transitions: how to dismantle authoritarian structures without creating a security vacuum that invites chaos or coup.

The Context of Civilian-Military Tensions

Sudan’s transitional period following the 2019 ouster of Omar al-Bashir represented one of the most delicate political experiments in recent African history. Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok’s civilian-led government faced the monumental task of transforming a state that had been under military rule for three decades. The power-sharing arrangement between civilian and military leaders was always fragile, built on mutual distrust rather than genuine partnership.

The accusation from al-Bashir’s former aide must be understood within this context of competing visions for Sudan’s future. The military, which had long dominated Sudan’s political and economic life, controlled vast business empires and enjoyed immunity from civilian oversight. Any attempt at genuine democratic reform necessarily required curtailing these privileges—a process the military would inevitably interpret as an existential threat.

The Impossible Balancing Act

The transitional government’s alleged efforts to “neutralize and weaken” the army reflect a dilemma faced by every nation attempting to transition from military to civilian rule. Historical precedents from Latin America to Southeast Asia demonstrate that militaries rarely surrender power voluntarily. Chile’s Pinochet retained command of the armed forces for years after stepping down as president. Myanmar’s military wrote itself constitutional guarantees before allowing partial democratization—guarantees it later used to justify its 2021 coup.

In Sudan’s case, the civilian government faced an institution that wasn’t merely a military force but a parallel state structure with its own economic interests, intelligence networks, and regional alliances. The Rapid Support Forces, a paramilitary group that emerged from the Janjaweed militias, further complicated this landscape. Attempting to establish civilian oversight or reduce military budgets wasn’t just administrative reform—it was a direct challenge to entrenched power structures.

The International Dimension

The struggle between Sudan’s civilian and military leadership also played out on the international stage. Western nations and international financial institutions tied economic assistance to democratic progress, implicitly supporting efforts to reduce military influence. Meanwhile, regional powers like Egypt and the UAE, wary of democratic movements in their neighborhood, maintained close ties with Sudan’s military establishment. This external pressure from both sides intensified internal tensions and may have accelerated the confrontation between civilian and military forces.

From Transition to Tragedy

The October 2021 military coup that removed Hamdok from power and the subsequent descent into civil war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces vindicate both perspectives on the transition. Those who argued for aggressive civilian oversight can point to the coup as proof that the military was never a good-faith partner in democratization. Conversely, those who warned against weakening the military can cite the current chaos as evidence that destabilizing security institutions invites state collapse.

The tragedy of Sudan illustrates a fundamental challenge in democratic transitions: the very institutions that must be reformed for democracy to succeed are often the only ones capable of maintaining basic order. This creates a timing problem with no clear solution. Move too quickly to assert civilian control, and the military may strike preemptively. Move too slowly, and democratic momentum dissipates while authoritarian structures reconsolidate.

As Sudan burns and its people suffer, the international community must grapple with an uncomfortable question: Is there a way to democratize states with powerful military establishments that doesn’t risk either coup or collapse, or must we accept that some transitions inevitably pass through chaos before reaching stability?