How the war in Sudan produced a state of schizophrenia

A seemingly idyllic partnership

It is important to remember that a few months before the war began, the army commanders and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) — who had been sharing power — put forth the image of a close and unbreakable relationship.

They painted an idyllic picture of their partnership, claiming that it was rooted in history and impervious to change. Each party praised the other and emphasised their commitment to achieving the goals of the Sudanese revolution — namely peace, justice, and freedom.

Lieutenant General Shams al-Din Kabbashi, a member of the Sovereignty Council, praised RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (commonly known as Hemedti) in a video clip that circulated on the internet during their partnership days after the revolution, referring to him as an 'honourable man'.

Read more: Hemedti: From camel trader to second most powerful man in Sudan

On his part, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the chairman of the Sovereignty Council, addressing critics of the RSF, defended the group and spoke of Hemedti's significant role in protecting the Sudanese people — both before and after the revolution.

Al-Burhan went so far as to slam anyone who did not acknowledge Hemedti's important role, labelling it an "act of arrogance".

Meanwhile, Hemedti regarded al-Burhan as an ally who could help him achieve his objectives. He also considered the army and its leaders as comrades with a shared destiny.

During a public speech, Hemedti cautioned his forces against engaging in conflicts with the army, urging them to turn the other cheek if a confrontation arose.

Read more: Al Burhan: The reluctant ruler of Sudan

In this carefully managed relationship, it was evident that the Sudanese people were expected to believe in a common enemy — the transitional government and the political factions that were part of the revolutionary forces. Both factions criticised this common 'adversary'. 

New political dynamic emerges

The culmination of this animosity for the transitional government was the coup on 25 October 2021, also referred to as the Corrective Movement.

The details of the partnership agreement within this coup remained unknown. Nonetheless, it naturally introduced a new political dynamic — which could be seen in the new relationship that emerged between the two army generals.

Hemedti gained more independence in his decision-making and transformed into a rival rather than a mere deputy to al-Burhan. It was apparent to everyone that all issued decisions — particularly those concerning the political process — required approval and signatures from both al-Burhan and Hemedti to carry any weight.

As a result, a kind of dual leadership emerged. Over time, each leader developed their own positions and visions for the political process and their future within it, independent of the other.

Eventually, the dual leadership between the chairman and his deputy evolved into a state of hostility — particularly regarding security and military reforms that involved the integration of the RSF as recommended in the framework agreement.

Read more: Explainer: Why are military forces fighting each other in Sudan?

At this point, without any logical explanation, there was a clear break between the two camps who, seemingly overnight, went from allies to enemies. This conveniently occurred just as the political agreement over the transition to civilian leadership was close to being reached.

Civilians caught between two warring factions

What made matters worse was that the political forces and different segments of the Sudanese people found themselves caught between two warring factions instead of a unified authority.

The army derived its legitimacy from being an established official institution, with its leader serving as the chairman of the Transitional Sovereignty Council (TSC), which technically made him the head of state.

Meanwhile, the RSF's legitimacy stemmed from their leader's position as the deputy chairman of the TSC. The RSF began pushing narratives about their role in the state before and after the fall of the al-Bashir regime to further reinforce their claim to legitimacy.  

Regardless of any contempt toward the RSF forces, it cannot be denied that they were established openly and flourished under the auspices of the authority itself, which utilised them to consolidate its influence and maintain its hold on power.

Faced with these opposing claims to legitimacy, ordinary citizens and society at large were thrown into a state of tension. Choosing one side over the other was a risky undertaking that could result in charges of high treason. 

One only needs to look at Sudanese social media platforms to see the extent of the division and tension that has emerged.

When the war broke out, the Sudanese people were caught off-guard. This is because the statements they heard from both sides prior to the war unequivocally affirmed that war would not erupt, and that the army and the RSF were moving toward de-escalation.

Read more: UN envoy to Sudan optimistic about transition to civilian rule

However, reality eventually revealed that these claims were nothing but military tactics — far removed from the truth.

The proliferation of armed factions is a true curse wherever it arises, especially when the leaders of those factions have a monopoly on power, as is the case in Sudan.

When war erupts, little attention is paid to the lives of the people. It is as if there was never a government, ministers, or officials responsible for paying salaries and ensuring the welfare of civil servants. Until now, we have not heard of any minister issuing a statement or taking action in support of the citizens.

State of schizophrenia

The situation in Sudan is quite bizarre. The state is pitted against itself, with the president fighting the vice president, and the army battling auxiliary forces that emerged from within its own ranks.

The Sudanese leadership is in a state of schizophrenia.

Even as the two factions are battling each other, contradictive statements are being issued. For example, the army has stated that its dispute is not with the RSF, but with their leader and his brother, Abdul Rahim Dagalo.

Similarly, the RSF have asserted their respect for the army while, at the same time, holding its commanders and the remnants of the old regime responsible for the war.

This state of schizophrenia leaves Sudanese citizens in a state of confusion. They are forced to choose between the warring parties that were, until recently, partners in power.

Consequently, a significant portion of the population has come to realise that this war is absurd and that the warring generals have little regard for the welfare of the Sudanese people and are willing to destroy the country before sitting at the negotiating table to settle their personal disputes.

Learning from the past

What is needed is an anti-war movement to overcome this current state of violence and impasse. We need to re-evaluate the structure of the state and the relationships among its people and regions.

We need to understand the historical roots of the conflict, as well as the marginalised regions and the ensuing regional and tribal wars that erupted as a result — most notably the one led by the Sudan People's Liberation Movement in Southern Sudan.

This movement and war ultimately resulted in secession and the establishment of a new state independent from the traditional centre of power in Khartoum, which historically imposed its own perceptions of rule through force.

It is imperative that those involved in this current war must put the lives and wellbeing of the Sudanese people before their own desire for victory or defeat.