Sudan Between Chaos and Transformation: What the Regional and International Community and the Suda

12:10 PM December, 13 2025

Sudanese Online
محمد عبدالله ابراهيم-الخرطوم-السودان
My Library
Short URL



Sudan Between Chaos and Transformation: What the Regional and International Community and the Sudanese Civil Society Must Do to End the Crisis (1-2)



The Sudanese crisis is worsening day by day, evolving into one of the most horrific humanitarian tragedies in the world today. With the war continuing, the scale of destruction and devastation expanding without any horizon for resolution, and the collapse of basic life and security daily, calls to the regional and international communities grow louder to assume their ethical, political, and legal responsibilities. There is an urgent need to move from condemnation, anticipation, and silence to genuine and responsible action - action that puts an end to the war in Sudan and opens the way for a serious political path leading to comprehensive and deserved democratic civilian transformation.

The International Community: Multiple Initiatives, Lack of Unified Vision

Although many insist on describing the Sudanese crisis as “complex,” the undeniable truth is that the continuation of the war is less about complexity than about the absence of genuine and serious will among regional and international actors to end the crisis. The tragedy Sudan is experiencing today is not a predetermined fate, but the direct result of two interrelated factors: first, international and regional negligence in formulating a unified strategy to stop the war and confront its roots; second, a structural crisis in the cohesion of Sudanese political and civil forces, which remain unable to unite their front and formulate a joint program that reflects the aspirations of the people and addresses the challenges of the current stage.

Since the outbreak of the war, dozens of high-level meetings have been held, including meetings with political parties and civil society components, yet all of them have failed to produce tangible results that halt the war or limit crimes and violations against civilians. What Sudan needs today is not more statements of condemnation, nor superficial initiatives announced in the morning and forgotten by evening, but a clear roadmap reflecting a genuine and sincere commitment to peace. This roadmap must obligate the international and regional communities to move from the position of observer to that of a responsible actor in stopping the war, from repeating promises to fulfilling them. It begins with a single step that cannot be delayed: an immediate cessation of the war, as the primary ethical and political condition for any serious path that prioritizes the lives of Sudanese people over all calculations and opens the door to building a new future for a homeland that deserves to be saved, not left to chaos and an uncertain fate.

The Internal Crisis: Civil Forces’ Intersections and Erosion of Trust

The international community alone cannot be held responsible for prolonging the Sudanese crisis. Civil forces, which are supposed to form a unified democratic alternative, suffer from deep imbalances and a crisis in unity and the ability to agree on a minimum program. This makes them bear a significant portion of the responsibility for the outbreak and continuation of the war.

There was a real opportunity for the Coordination of Democratic Civil Forces to expand its ranks and embrace various segments and components of Sudanese society, enabling it to form the largest national civil bloc capable of stopping the war and restoring the path of democratic civilian transformation. Yet what happened was the exact opposite. Instead of expanding and uniting, the alliance split, weakening the civil front at a crucial moment when the country and its people, exhausted by war, needed the highest levels of cohesion and national responsibility.

This division is not unprecedented. The Sudanese political arena, throughout its modern history, has witnessed structural splits within political parties, in addition to an increasing rift within civil alliances that were supposed to form the strong foundations of the democratic path. These divisions directly contributed to prolonging authoritarian regimes, most notably the National Congress Party regime, which remained in power for three decades, benefiting from the fragmentation and dispersion of civil forces and their inability to build a unified national front capable of enforcing change and protecting the aspirations of the people.

A prominent recent example is the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC) alliance, which led the glorious December 2019 revolution responsibly and effectively. However, once the regime fell, internal disputes within its components escalated, and the alliance failed to manage these disputes, quickly turning into a series of sharp divisions that fractured the revolution itself at a highly sensitive moment. At that time, Sudan and its people, eager for change, needed a cohesive civil front capable of protecting the revolution’s achievements and realizing its goals of freedom, peace, and justice, opening the way for genuine democratic transformation. This disintegration not only extinguished the opportunity to build a democratic civilian state but also undermined popular trust and left a significant political void, which could have otherwise been a bridge toward a new Sudan restoring dignity to the people and granting the country its rightful place among nations.

The roots of these divisions lie in the fragility of civil alliances themselves and in the prioritization of narrow partisan interests over national interests. This structural flaw has rendered them incapable of agreeing even on a minimum program, and if an agreement and alliance are reached, it is often fragile, unable to withstand the first test, and internal disputes reappear. Moreover, the leaders of these alliances fail to manage or resolve disputes effectively, despite all components advocating for democracy. Consequently, accumulated contradictions turn into new divisions, complicating the political scene and weakening the ability of civil forces to play an effective role in critical moments.



This fragility is fundamentally based on three main causes:

First Cause: Ideological Divisions and Narrow Partisan Interests

Civil political forces suffer from deep ideological divisions, where they cannot distinguish between private party work and public national work, or between party issues and national issues. To worsen matters, some parties refuse to accept differing viewpoints, directly leading to the prioritization of narrow partisan and personal agendas over the supreme national interest. This makes any consensus on a minimum program fragile and prone to collapse at the first internal disagreement. This situation has paralyzed the civil front, weakened its ability to confront the war and military actors, and prevented it from forming a unified and effective pressure to stop the war and restore democratic civilian transformation.

Second Cause: Weak Mechanisms for Managing Disputes and Internal Governance

Often, even when a preliminary consensus is reached, civil forces lack effective mechanisms to manage disputes and resolve conflicts internally. This weakness leads to rapid fragmentation of alliances and drains their political energy before they can exert any real influence on the political scene. Ironically, alliance components sometimes act against their former partners more than confronting the common enemy, and in some cases even ally with the “historical enemy” to undermine and sabotage the other alliance’s work, as happened with the FFC and Democratic Bloc alliances. The absence of such mechanisms, combined with weak democratic practices within parties, renders any efforts at internal unity or building a strong national bloc vulnerable to failure, regardless of good intentions.

Third Cause: External Influences and Security Agencies

These disputes also have external roots. Sudanese security and intelligence agencies, nurtured by authoritarian military regimes, have long arms working to sow discord and fuel internal conflicts among civil forces. This interference aims to destabilize unity, divide alliances, and weaken them, serving the continuation of military rule and delaying any efforts toward change and genuine democratic transformation.

The fragility of Sudanese civil forces and their inability to agree on a unified minimum program weakens any national attempt to end the war and leaves the door open for continued conflict, even under international and regional pressure. These divisions and the failure of civil forces to produce a comprehensive political project and national program have eroded popular trust to the point that the majority of Sudanese no longer trust political parties and alliances, leaving a significant political void and increasing the difficulty for any civil force aiming to lead the country toward genuine democratic transformation.

The Way Forward: International Seriousness and National Unity

Ending the Sudanese crisis requires a radical shift in the approach of both the international community and Sudanese civil forces. To achieve this, merely declaring a desire for peace is not enough; international and regional will must be manifested in clear and integrated steps that translate the global commitment to peace into tangible actions that end the war immediately and halt the political and diplomatic chaos that has obstructed all previous initiatives. Peace is not a theoretical option; it is an urgent practical necessity. The success of any future path depends on the commitment of all to implement the following steps …



To be continued ..



Mohammed Abdullah Ibrahim

Human Rights Defender

[email protected]

Arabic Forum