The Face of Truth | Ibrahim Shaglawi The Dilemma of Empowering Burhan? The issue of granting General Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan the authority to manage Sudan's affairs during this critical phase of the country's history has sparked extensive political debate in recent days. Some view this delegation of power as a necessity to achieve national unity and mend the social fabric torn by political and military conflicts. But can such a choice provide a sustainable solution at a time when Sudanese priorities are focused on establishing security and stability? Let us explore these ideas to address the dilemma of delegation by examining the reality of Sudanese political parties and regional and international experiences. Al-Burhan’s speech yesterday in Omdurman carried multiple messages reflecting a complex political reality where the military dimension intertwines with civilian aspirations, and national ambitions clash with accumulated challenges. He emphasized partnership with those who stood by the armed forces in the "Battle of Dignity" and highlighted the need to exclude forces that bore arms against the state from the political scene. This stance opens the door to discussions on the role the military institution can play in Sudan amidst the faltering of political parties and deteriorating security conditions. When examining political philosophy, the concept of civilian rule emerges as a framework allowing societal governance through party pluralism and competition among reformist ideas. However, Sudan's experience has shown the parties’ inability to leverage this framework to achieve stability and development. The Sudanese political parties have largely been characterized by a lack of clear programs and visions, coupled with internal disputes that made them prone to divisions, zero-sum conflicts, and external dependencies, driving the country into complex crises that culminated in a full-scale war. This situation pushes the military to intervene not only as a protector of national security but also as a political actor striving to restructure the scene. However, this intervention does not occur in a vacuum. The repeated failures of the parties have paved the way for the military institution to emerge as an alternative. Proponents of delegating power to Burhan argue that the military institution has a national character alongside organization and discipline, enabling it to maintain the country's unity and establish security during this phase. In this context, a legitimate question arises: Can the army play a transitional role without evolving into a sustainable authority that obstructs subsequent democratic transformation? Sudan's political history is rife with instances where the military intervened to rescue the country from chaos, but the outcomes have often been a subject of intense debate. Nevertheless, the ongoing war has underscored the necessity of a capable military institution to preserve the country's unity. Thus, the debate over the role of the military institution is not limited to Sudan. Modern history is replete with examples of military leaders contributing to the establishment of stable states, such as Charles de Gaulle in France and Dwight Eisenhower in the United States. There are also other experiences where militarization led to the weakening of civilian life. In Sudan’s case, the military institution appears compelled to play a dual role: safeguarding the country from security collapse while managing its political affairs. Amidst this controversy, regional and international experiences emerge as potential sources of learning. Turkey’s 1980 experience provides a model where the army intervened following political and security turmoil, directly managed the transitional phase, organized a referendum on a new constitution, and gradually returned power to civilians through elections. Similarly, Thailand’s 2014 experience demonstrated the army's role in managing a transitional phase after comparable turmoil, drafting a roadmap that included political reforms and subsequent elections. However, these experiences also indicate that the success of such interventions depends on having a clear vision and a commitment to transferring power at the right time. In Sudan’s context, delegating authority to the military institution requires precise conditions to ensure this option does not evolve into prolonged military rule. Hence, this delegation should occur through a direct popular referendum with broad participation using national mechanisms to achieve genuine consensus on the country’s future. Al-Burhan’s recent speech clearly indicated the military institution’s desire to pave the way for a democratic system. This commitment needs to be translated into practical terms through a clear roadmap that ensures the military institution’s withdrawal from the political scene at the end of the transitional period. On the international level, popular support for leadership during the transitional phase can be a decisive factor in countering any external pressures or blackmail, provided it is built on genuine popular legitimacy representing the Sudanese people's will. Striking a balance between civilian and military roles in Sudan necessitates a reevaluation of the foundational relationship between the army and national parties. What is needed is a national charter that defines each party’s role and guarantees a smooth transition towards a democratic civilian state that respects the people’s will. The delegation that can be agreed upon and reflects the majority of Sudanese people's desire for the restoration of security and peace must be implemented through national mechanisms, such as a direct popular referendum with the participation of all segments of Sudanese society, including displaced persons and refugees, to ensure true representation for all Sudanese. Time constraints should be set to prevent this from evolving into prolonged rule, with a roadmap outlining specific national objectives to be achieved within the transitional period. From this perspective, as we see from the face of truth, Sudan faces a pivotal moment that requires strong leadership capable of overcoming divisions. If Sudanese people feel that this leadership represents their will and seeks to achieve their goals, popular support will serve as the first line of defense against any regional or international blackmail and close the door on debates about legitimacy. Therefore, a comprehensive strategy based on mechanisms of popular empowerment and national sovereignty is essential. Only this can put an end to the debate over nominating Al-Burhan for the presidency. Stay well and safe. Friday, February 14, 2025 [email protected]