Analysis of the Components of Conflict in Sudan: A Perspective from Social Sciences

03:10 PM October, 12 2024

Sudanese Online
حسن بشير محمد نور-Sudan
My Library
Short URL




Professor Hassan Bashir Mohamed Nour / Cairo

This article aims to stimulate research and analysis into the roots of the war in Sudan, diagnosing the causes to find a remedy. It is an invitation for young researchers and academics in the fields of sociology, social psychology, developmental psychology, and, of course, political economy—my field of expertise. This call urges them to delve deep into the crisis from various angles to investigate the real causes and find the necessary solutions for sustainable national recovery, peace, social security, and stability.

Sudan has been in a state of deep conflict for long time, which goes beyond military confrontations between the Sudanese army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). It also involves intertwined psychological and social transformations. To understand the nature of the forces driving this conflict, it is essential to incorporate a developmental psychological framework alongside social analysis from the perspective of social sciences. This requires an analytical approach that deeply understands Sudan’s societal, economic, and political structures, paying particular attention to the psychology of conflict.

Historical and Social Background of the Conflict

The current conflict in Sudan should be seen as part of a historical and social accumulation. Sudan is a country with diverse ethnicities and cultures and has suffered from structural imbalances in the distribution of economic resources and political power since the colonial era. These issues were followed by conflicts over power, wealth, and national identity.

Since Sudan’s independence in 1956, there has been a long history of civil wars and internal conflicts tied to uneven development, ethnic and tribal disputes, and the marginalization of peripheral regions in favor of the center. This has led to chronic instability and the emergence of social groups that rely on military power as the primary means to acquire resources and political influence. This was reinforced by political agreements, from the Addis Ababa Agreement with Ana-Nya II in 1973 to the Juba Agreements in 2020 with so-called "armed struggle movements."

Psychological and Social Awareness of the Warring Parties

The Sudanese army sees itself as the traditional military institution carrying the legacy of the modern Sudanese state. Most of its members come from social groups that view the army as a symbol of national unity and stability. Members of the army often come from rural backgrounds or areas representing the "official" Sudanese identity, reinforcing their perception of the army as the national representative, despite the identity erosion and politicization that occurred under the Al-Ingaz regime.

Psychologically, the awareness of army members is shaped around the idea of defending the Sudanese state as a unified entity against internal and external threats. They are influenced by memories of long wars against rebellions in the South and Darfur, enhancing their sense of being protectors of the "Sudanese nation."

On the other hand, the RSF emerged in a different context, largely representing the interests of historically marginalized social groups, particularly in regions like Darfur. These forces initially began as local militias with tribal affiliations. RSF members often come from impoverished and socially and economically marginalized backgrounds. They seek empowerment through military force, and their psychological awareness revolves primarily around the idea of rebelling against a system that marginalizes them. They harbor a deep sense of historical and social injustice, which fosters a desire for revenge and the belief that bearing arms is the only means to achieve justice and equality in terms of influence and resources.

Economic and Psychological Developmental Factors

1. Economic Motivations: Competition for resources is one of the primary drivers of conflict. The Sudanese army seeks to maintain control over state institutions and their economic resources, while the RSF aims to redistribute these resources to groups that have been marginalized for decades, at least theoretically. The conflict revolves around control over natural resources like gold and oil, as well as exploiting economic institutions as a means of wealth and social empowerment.


2. Psychological and Developmental Factors: From a developmental psychology perspective, the conflict between the army and the RSF is seen as a struggle between conflicting identities—centralized collective consciousness represented by the army and local or tribal consciousness represented by the RSF. Both sides draw upon remnants of identity conflicts that have developed over decades. Each party views the other as an existential threat to its identity and way of survival.


3. Identity and Political Interests: The conflict is also tied to competition over political power. The Sudanese army wants to maintain the dominance of the center, which has represented the ruling elite for decades, while the RSF seeks to reshape the political system to allow for greater representation of marginalized groups, as reflected in their official rhetoric.



The psychological competition for power is a central driving force of the conflict. Both parties feel threatened by the possibility of losing their identity and essential interests, leading them to believe that power is an existential guarantee.

Social Psychology of the Conflict

The conflict reflects different stages of psychological and social development for each party. The army represents traditional institutions rooted in a national identity centered on state power, while the RSF represents new developmental stages responding to the need for state reformation to achieve social justice as they perceive it, rejecting the "1956 State" and advocating a kind of modernity around the concept of a "New Sudan."

Additionally, there is a deeply ingrained psychological aspect tied to the collective ego of each side. The army seeks to affirm a "national ego" in its rhetoric, while the RSF constructs a new ego based on challenge and change. Both sides suffer from feelings of fear and insecurity, leading to dangerous escalation.

In light of this psychological and social analysis, it becomes clear that the conflict in Sudan is fueled by accumulated historical inequalities and social injustices, driven by psychological developments related to self-awareness and perception of the other. The Sudanese army and the RSF represent opposing forces in the structure of Sudanese society: one rooted in history and tradition, and the other striving to reshape this history in its own way.

These complex dynamics will remain central to the conflict unless its psychological, social, and economic roots are addressed. The resolution of this compound crisis requires deep attention, especially from researchers, academics, and advocates of enlightenment, before other components of Sudanese society, particularly the political components that often lack the necessary depth and specialization in addressing the intricate crisis that Sudan suffers from.

Arabic Forum