Garrison
The recent clashes in Sudan stem from a deep internal struggle over how to reform the security forces. This tension was anticipated by the framework agreements signed in 2019 after Omar al-Bashir was toppled. The core divide pits the two leaders against each other over who should command and how to reform the security apparatus, while both are wary of allowing the Rapid Support Forces, the RSF, to gain a sweeping place within the Armed Forces. Both Abdelfatah al-Burhan, the head of the army, and Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemeti and the RSF commander, have long sought the largest possible share of power as the country charts a path to a civilian-led transition. These competing ambitions have created a volatile political landscape that threatens the stability of Sudan itself and the wider region.
There is a persistent clash in leadership styles and goals. Al-Burhan heads the military with a steady, organized approach, while Hemeti commands a force that emerged from Darfur and expanded its influence through control of lucrative, and often brutal, regional resources. Hemeti describes his military experience as rooted in a diverse mix of tribal militias and border protection duties, whereas al-Burhan rose through formal military ranks and official posts within the army structure. The divergent backgrounds underline why a peaceful transfer of authority remains elusive and why both sides resist ceding power to civilian authorities.
Tense Relationship
Hemeti’s charisma helped him mold the RSF into a powerful political actor since 2013. His control over key regional resources, including precious mining assets, consolidated his grip during the latter years of Bashir’s rule and continued through the 2019 coup and beyond. Since the initial accord, the relationship between Hemeti and al-Burhan has grown increasingly strained. Their joint presidency of the transition has deteriorated into mutual accusations, with each side blaming the other for stalling reforms and for failing to hand over real authority to civilian actors. Hemeti argues that a civilian-led government should hold the reins, while al-Burhan has shown reluctance to fully relinquish command to a civilian power structure.
The refusal to transfer power to civilians in the 2021 coup, which upended the transitional government led by Hamdok, led to international condemnation and a concerted push toward a new coalition. The international community, including the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, and other Western partners, has urged both sides to cooperate on a framework that would sustain a functioning civilian administration. Still, the path to a durable, democratically elected government remains unclear. Hamdok’s brief tenure and subsequent resignation further deepened the rifts between the top military figures who are determined to control the state’s economic resources and strategic assets.
Rafael Martínez, a political scientist at the University of Barcelona who participated in the negotiation process for framework agreements, notes that the country still seeks a credible path to civilian rule. He points out that UN agencies and international mediators have been actively involved through missions designed to support Sudan’s transition, including support from the United Nations transition assistance mission in Sudan. The ongoing instability has prompted repeated calls from the United States, the European Union, and other partners for a new unity government that would be democratically elected and backed by broad civil society participation.
The broader crisis is fueled by a fragile peace in the capital and across a range of peripheries where security is uneven and where both sides wield influence over security services. The apparatus remains a critical battleground for power as toxic competition over resources continues to feed the conflict and complicate efforts to form a stable, inclusive government that can address the needs of Sudan’s people. Analysts warn that without credible reform and a genuine commitment to civilian oversight, the risk of further escalations remains high.
In this volatile climate, regional and international actors emphasize the importance of a comprehensive political agreement that guarantees civilian authority and safeguards basic rights. The ongoing negotiations reflect a broader struggle to redefine governance in Sudan after years of authoritarian rule, conflict, and transitional fragility. The path forward depends on the willingness of both Burhan and Hemeti to engage in good faith, to accept civilian leadership, and to build a framework that can sustain governance beyond the immediate military calculus and economic interests that have fueled tensions for so long. As observers like Martínez observe, credible mediation and sustained international support are essential to prevent a relapse into full-scale crisis and to support a stable transition that can endure beyond the next election cycle.