A new initiative aimed at fostering dialogue in Sudan is facing scrutiny regarding military influence, yet critics are urged not to dismiss it prematurely. More than three years into the conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), there is a pressing need for a political settlement. The ongoing fighting has resulted in significant suffering, and a military solution alone is insufficient to rebuild the state or unify its divided society. Any effort to encourage dialogue among Sudanese citizens warrants serious consideration.
In August, a committee of 19 Sudanese public figures, chaired by Ahfad University President Qasim Badri, launched an initiative to prepare for national dialogue within Sudan. This committee previously met with SAF chief General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and called for the lifting of legal restrictions on opposition politicians. Subsequently, authorities issued a decree to drop certain politically motivated charges against Sudanese abroad returning for dialogue and provide temporary legal protections for participants. While these measures are limited, they are viewed as important confidence-building steps.
However, the initiative has encountered strong opposition. The civilian coalition Sumoud, led by former Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, and Ta’sis, which includes the RSF, have expressed concerns about the proposed dialogue's independence. They warn that discussions in army-controlled areas could legitimize al-Burhan’s authority and deepen the country’s divisions. These concerns are valid and merit serious consideration. The committee asserts that it does not intend to negotiate Sudan’s future or set the agenda for national dialogue; rather, it aims to facilitate direct engagement among Sudanese political actors. The challenge lies in ensuring that one side of the conflict does not dominate the process. Premature dismissal of the initiative could hinder potential political engagement.
Sudan's political actors and civil society organizations remain deeply divided, and previous mediation efforts have failed. The ongoing war complicates comprehensive political engagement. The committee's initiative seeks to break this deadlock. Preparations for political dialogue should not be delayed until the conflict ceases. While securing a ceasefire and ensuring humanitarian access are urgent priorities, efforts to prepare for political dialogue can occur simultaneously.
The committee's members were not elected and do not represent all political constituencies. However, their legitimacy should not be judged solely by their formation but also by their ability to include a broader range of political actors in national dialogue.
Good intentions alone cannot address concerns about credibility. Political dialogue can only succeed if participants perceive the process as fair and independent. The legitimacy needed to facilitate political engagement differs from that required to negotiate a national settlement. Even a preparatory initiative must earn the trust of those it seeks to unite.
The committee's meeting with al-Burhan was a practical necessity, as he holds a significant position to respond to the committee's demands for legal protections. Engaging with al-Burhan does not equate to endorsing his authority. However, if the initiative becomes closely associated with the military, other political actors may view it as an extension of al-Burhan’s agenda rather than an independent facilitator. The committee must demonstrate that its engagement extends beyond military authorities and includes political forces that oppose them.
The initiative was launched in Khartoum, which is under army control. This raises concerns about whether a process initiated in territory controlled by one side can gain the confidence of political forces nationwide. A national dialogue should not be limited to one geographical or political constituency, as different regions have experienced varying realities of war, governance, displacement, and insecurity. The committee must find ways to engage those outside army-controlled areas, including Sudanese displaced by the conflict, ensuring their participation is free and uncoerced.
The rejection of the initiative by Sumoud and Ta’sis does not invalidate the process. Their concerns warrant consideration, but outright dismissal at this early stage risks closing off opportunities for political engagement. Their absence is significant, as Sudan’s crisis is too complex for any single political faction to resolve. The committee cannot expect immediate endorsement from every stakeholder, but it must create conditions that encourage reluctant actors to participate. Failure to do so would signify the initiative's failure.
The African Union Commission and the Arab League have expressed support for the initiative, providing regional backing. Their endorsement adds weight to the effort to revive Sudanese-led political dialogue, although external support cannot replace the confidence of Sudan’s political forces.
The initiative should be assessed without excessive optimism or automatic skepticism. The legal measures announced following the committee's engagement with al-Burhan represent a positive initial step, but the true test lies ahead. Will it effectively remove legal and political barriers facing opposition actors? Can it gain the confidence of those who have rejected it? Will it ensure that Sudanese across political and geographical divides have the opportunity to participate freely?
Ultimately, Sudan’s crisis necessitates that actors with differing visions for the country engage politically. No committee can undertake this on their behalf, nor can external actors. At best, a preparatory initiative can create conditions conducive to such engagement. Critics' concerns should be taken seriously, but they should not lead to a rejection of the initiative before it has had the chance to address them. Those who have dismissed it should remain open to reconsidering their stance if the committee demonstrates its capacity to build an independent and inclusive process. If successful, it could provide a significant service to the nation.