Al-Burhan’s Continuity Means the Continuity of Collapse… Sudan in the Grip of the General Who Has Lost His Legitimacy
Since General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan seized power in Sudan following his coup against the civilian government, Sudanese citizens have been living under the weight of an accelerated collapse unseen since the country’s independence. The ongoing war, the deep division within state institutions, and the economic and social breakdown are direct consequences of the military leadership’s failure to manage the country. Al-Burhan’s continued rule is not merely a transient political crisis; it poses an existential threat to the very concept of the Sudanese state, where military rule has become a system based on force rather than legitimacy, repression rather than law.
From the beginning, al-Burhan treated power as spoils rather than a mandate. He overthrew the transitional government, which represented the first genuine attempt to build a civilian system, and promised to resume the political process after a “course correction.” Yet his promises quickly evaporated into a spiral of unilateral decisions and military loyalties. He lacked any political vision or national project capable of uniting the country after years of chaos, opting instead to manage the scene through control and exclusion. Observers of his rule can see that Sudan is experiencing deep political paralysis, with the military institution transformed from a tool to protect the state into an instrument of its own destabilization.
In this context, it was unsurprising that war erupted between the army and the Rapid Support Forces. This conflict is not merely a struggle for military influence; it is the inevitable outcome of institutional decay and the leadership’s lack of vision. Instead of addressing the root causes of the crisis, al-Burhan chose a policy of reckless advancement, igniting an internal confrontation that destroyed infrastructure and plunged millions of civilians into displacement and famine. Over time, war ceased to be a means of defending the state and became a tool for generals to maintain power, feeding off the conflict as the ruling clique feeds off chaos.
Al-Burhan failed militarily before failing politically. He could not win battles, maintain army cohesion, or formulate a clear plan to end the war or stop civilian bleeding. Field reports indicate declining morale among regular forces, breakdown of field commands, and lack of coordination between units, turning the army itself into a site of chaos. This failure cannot be justified by external factors; the root cause is internal. A leadership that refuses to acknowledge its mistakes and treats blood as a political tool cannot triumph or govern.
Simultaneously, this military failure has led to unprecedented economic collapse. Production is paralyzed, exports halted, the Sudanese pound has collapsed, and basic commodity prices have skyrocketed. More than half of Sudan’s population urgently requires humanitarian aid, and millions have lost homes and livelihoods. Continued war simply means continued famine, ongoing service breakdown, and brain and skill drain. Discussions of “economic reform” or “reconstruction” are meaningless as long as the war’s instigator remains in power.
Al-Burhan has not only failed to manage the state but also to uphold the most basic principles of justice. Over recent years, local and international organizations have documented serious violations committed by his forces against civilians. From indiscriminate shelling to arbitrary arrests, torture, and enforced disappearances, the facts show that the military institution, claiming to protect the nation, has become the primary adversary of its citizens. No genuine investigations into these crimes have been launched; they have been concealed, and victims silenced by force. How can the rule of law exist when those committing crimes against their own people remain unaccountable? The absence of accountability in Sudan is not merely administrative negligence but a deliberate policy to shield the pillars of the military regime from scrutiny.
Al-Burhan’s continuation in power means the continuation of impunity. Each documented violation without consequence signals that justice has no place in Sudan. Justice is neither a political luxury nor a vengeful demand; it is the foundation on which any state is built. Without it, there can be no reconciliation, no reconstruction, no genuine institutions. A country that does not hold its oppressors accountable is condemned to repeat its tragedies.
Politically, al-Burhan no longer enjoys domestic or international legitimacy. Civil forces refuse to engage with him, and the international community sees him as an obstacle to any negotiated solution. Even within the military institution, calls are growing for a successor capable of leading a transition to end the war. Yet the man clings to power like a drowning man to a plank, unaware that his survival only prolongs the collapse. He has become a symbol of failure, an embodiment of incapacity, and an obstacle to any national project.
What Sudan needs today is not a new general or another coup, but a civilian leadership with the will to dismantle the military power structure and redefine the state as an institution serving the people rather than oppressing them. Sudan does not suffer from a lack of resources or competence but from a system that reproduces corruption and violence and blocks any path to justice. The solution lies not in temporary compromises keeping the military in power, but in a complete break with the past, opening the way for genuine accountability and comprehensive reform of security institutions.
Al-Burhan’s continued rule means continued war, division, and suffering for the Sudanese. Every additional day in office is another day of destruction. History will not forgive a leader who turned his army into a tool of oppression and his people into fuel for a senseless war. Sudan deserves a different future, built not on the ashes of coups but on genuine civilian will that ends the era of generals and restores the true meaning of the state.
