Sudan: Is al-Burhan Aligning with ‘Kizan’?
In two separate interviews with the Financial Times magazine previously, the Sudanese Army Chief of Staff, General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and his former ally who leads the Rapid Support Forces, General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemeti, exchanged accusations and portrayed each other as “criminals”.
Among the accusations leveled by Hemeti against al-Burhan is his alleged alignment with the Muslim Brotherhood, seeking to regain power and establish a dictatorship reminiscent of the era of former President Omar al-Bashir.
Hemeti told the magazine that “al-Burhan and his gang of Islamists have come to power and are not ready to relinquish it.”
Al-Burhan, who allied with Hemeti in 2019 to overthrow al-Bashir, denies these accusations and has affirmed on several occasions, most recently in February, that the claim of “Kizan” (a term referring to supporters of the former regime) within the army is a “false claim”.
Al-Burhan stated in a speech delivered in the state of White Nile on February 16 of this year that “the army is an old and entrenched institution not created by al-Bashir… This is all lies; the army does not have Kizan, this is the Sudanese army”.
Since the overthrow of al-Bashir, al-Burhan has become the de facto leader of Sudan and has concluded an agreement to share power with civilians to lead Sudan towards a three-year path to democracy.
Al-Burhan pledged to hold elections in July 2023 and hand over power to an elected civilian government. However, his opponents say he has entrenched the army in power.
Following the armed conflict between al-Burhan and Hemeti, pro-democracy groups have said that supporters of the al-Bashir era, or what they call the “remnants” of the old regime, may seek to return under the cover of the army’s fighting alongside the Rapid Support Forces.
A coalition comprising the Forces of Freedom and Change and Resistance Committees in neighborhoods emphasized in a statement that “the plan of the remnants and their persistent work is to regain control of the country again, even if it means dividing the country”.
Sudanese political analyst based in the United States, Fareed Zein, believes that “al-Burhan‘s collusion with the Brotherhood is a known fact to everyone”.
Zein adds in a statement to Al-Hurra website that “since the coup, al-Burhan has begun to change by suspending the work of the Dismantling of the Regime Committee, which is responsible for holding accountable the symbols and remnants of the former regime and dismissing them from the army or civilian and security institutions”.
Zein points out that “al-Burhan also deliberately dissolved the committee and reinstated the dismissed remnants of the regime to their positions”, noting that the remnants of the regime then began to return strongly, especially in the army, particularly those affiliated with the Brotherhood“.
Although al-Burhan and Hemeti rose to prominence during al-Bashir‘s era, the Islamists who were pillars of al-Bashir‘s rule for three decades may want to defeat Hemeti and ensure the victory of al-Burhan‘s regular army and the return of their military allies to power.
“For the Muslim Brotherhood, Hemeti is the primary enemy, and it is said that they are the ones who initiated these clashes… We have no evidence, but it does serve them to get rid of him,” according to Zein.
He asserts that “al-Burhan turned to the Brotherhood because he failed to gain the goodwill, support, and backing of civilian forces… He tried to form a civilian government loyal to him, but he failed”.
Thus, the Sudanese analyst says, al-Burhan had no choice but to turn to the Brotherhood, known for their opportunism… So they supported him and informed him that they were ready to help form a nominal civilian government”.
Zein explains that “al-Burhan is not a hardliner or affiliated with the Brotherhood, but his grip on power made him ally with them to stay in power at any cost”.
Al-Burhan controls heavy weapons and air forces, but his soldiers face a semi-regular force led by a former wealthy commander known as Hemeti.
After the collapse of the alliance between al-Burhan and Hemeti, the two men are fighting to deliver a decisive blow in a power struggle that could instead lead to a long-term conflict and further instability, undermining prospects for peace and economic recovery in Sudan after decades of dictatorship, military rule, and international isolation.
However, leading figure in the Forces for Freedom and Change, Mamoun Farouk, says, “The ongoing conflict has not revealed whether al-Burhan supports or relies on the Brotherhood.”
Farouk adds in his statement to Al-Hurra, “We cannot deny or confirm this accusation.”
Farouk also points out that “al-Burhan has not presented any political discourse or strategy disclosing what he wants exactly, and this has opened the door to interpretations regarding his movements and alliances, whether with the Brotherhood or others.”
Farouk explains that “Brotherhood leaders claim to be close to al-Burhan, and they have a strong relationship with the decision-making center, with many serving army officers following the Brotherhood.”
“Even if these accusations were true, al-Burhan would not clearly announce it because he knows the opinion of the Sudanese people about the Islamic movement,” according to Farouk, who emphasized that “the clear truth is that the revolution was launched to uproot the Muslim Brotherhood from power, and therefore they will not return no matter what happens.”
Farouk believes that the ongoing conflict “has not yet revealed a clear direction for al-Burhan, and all those who speak about it are based on analysis rather than actual information.”
Amid the accusations and counter-accusations, political analyst Fareed Zein believes that “ultimately, neither al-Burhan nor Hemeti can be relied upon; both are criminals and have committed atrocities against the Sudanese people,” as he expresses it.
Zein emphasizes that “the history of both men is known to Sudanese, whether in Darfur or elsewhere… Their hands are stained with blood.”
Zein believes that “the only solution for Sudan lies in the departure of both men and the handover of power to a civilian government.”
He concludes by saying, “They should have stepped down from power, but their mutual hatred and lack of trust between them have led to the outbreak of the terrible war that will destroy what remains in Sudan.”
