How Do We Protect the Victorious Leader from Becoming a Tyrant?

Dr. Mohamed Osman Awadallah
Many nations have witnessed the rise of heroes who led their countries with courage and loyalty in defending their homelands and liberating their people. These heroes then ascended to power with immense public support, carried on the shoulders of the legitimacy of victory, popular backing, and the institutions that birthed them. Some of them successfully led their nations from victory to institution-building—but unfortunately, others gradually slid from saviour to autocrat.
How Does This Transformation Happen?
It doesn’t usually occur suddenly, or out of a premeditated desire, but rather gradually through several key beginnings:
Absolute Power and Decision-Making Monopoly
Assuming that the “saviour of the nation” is entitled to lead it as long as he lives opens the door to full control, the undermining of institutions, and the marginalization of alternative opinions.
Absence of Institutions
Not just democratic ones—but even the basic structures of a functioning state. In the chaos brought on by war, a political vacuum often exists. There may be no strong political parties, democratic structures, or institutional checks and balances. The leader becomes the sole institution, and the state is hollowed out of its essential functions and power balances.
Fear of Retaliation or Collapse
Some leaders justify autocracy out of fear of the enemy’s return or internal threats to their vision. In doing so, they begin suppressing opposition under the guise of “protecting the nation.” Over time, this becomes a normalized method of governance.
Unconditional Popular Support
Often, unintentionally and with good intentions, the public helps create a tyrant—by granting him unchecked approval and believing that everything he does is justified.
Historical Examples
Napoleon Bonaparte: Started as a hero of the French Revolution, but crowned himself Emperor and waged devastating wars across Europe.
Joseph Stalin: Rose as a defender of the Bolshevik revolution, but became one of the most ruthless tyrants in history.
Muammar Gaddafi: Led a coup against the monarchy in Libya, preaching liberation, only to rule for decades with an iron fist.
How Can This Fate Be Avoided?
By:
Building strong institutions that separate powers.
Establishing a clear principle of peaceful transfer of power.
Promoting a culture of advising, criticizing, and holding leaders accountable—not idolizing them.
Ensuring a strong role for civil society and independent media to express public aspirations.
Upholding laws, constitutions, and traditions that limit presidential terms and define leadership conditions.
Can This Model Be Repeated in Sudan?
Short answer: Yes. It has happened before and can happen again. There are clear indicators—from the leader’s conduct, the style of governance, and even the behaviour of the surrounding elite—that support this possibility.
The Leader Between Heroism and Political Future
Today, General Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan stands in a highly symbolic and critical position. As Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, he continues to lead a decisive war against the RSF (Rapid Support Forces) militia. He is viewed as a national saviour and protector of Sudan’s unity in the face of external occupation projects.
This perspective is not emotional nor biased—it is grounded in tangible realities. Under Burhan’s leadership, and with unprecedented popular support, the army has reclaimed many areas, restored security in various cities and states, and saved citizens from the horrors inflicted by the RSF, giving them hope and life again.
While this moment demands full unity behind the military and its leadership, the experience of other nations teaches us that periods of heightened populism and weakened institutions are some of the most dangerous political phases in any country’s history. If the leader monopolises decision-making, however well-intentioned, and institutions are absent or sidelined, the future becomes unpredictable, even if the motives are patriotic.
The Problem of Institutional Absence
The issue is not with Burhan personally, but with the lack of a clear institutional framework around him. The public has no visibility into how key decisions are made, who advises or plans or reviews them. The leadership appears highly personalised. And while that might be understandable during wartime, continuing such a model post-war could morph into a form of unchecked one-person rule.
Another concern is the large-scale foreign interference in Sudan’s affairs, coupled with widespread arms and militias, and the fierce competition between national and foreign agendas. There are international and regional actors deeply involved, but with no transparency for the Sudanese public.
Important questions—like who is negotiating on Sudan’s behalf?, who makes the final decisions?, and what compromises are being discussed or rejected?—have no clear answers, leaving citizens to feel that their country’s future is being shaped behind closed doors.
What Is Needed Now?
To preserve Burhan’s heroic image and transition it into a foundation for building a stable, institutionalised state, several urgent steps are needed:
Establish professional political institutions that clearly and transparently share in decision-making.
Create a clear post-war roadmap, including a transitional government period under military oversight and a civilian technocratic administration.
Involve the public in the conversation about possible alternatives and foster transparency around the leadership’s reasoning and choices.
How Do We Avoid Losing the Hero?
The aim of raising this issue is not to cast doubt on Burhan’s intentions or to diminish the importance of completing the journey—but quite the opposite. The goal is to preserve his legacy as a national hero, and protect him from the dangerous pitfalls of absolute power—pitfalls many other leaders have fallen into.
Models of Successful Leadership After Crisis
Nelson Mandela – Emerging from prison, Mandela led South Africa toward reconciliation. He did not seek revenge, nor did he monopolise power. Instead, he established a democratic system rooted in plurality and transitional justice. He prioritised the national interest over personal gain, and declined a second term despite his immense popularity.
George Washington – A revered military leader who led the U.S. War of Independence. He resisted calls to become a king and instead established a civilian model of leadership. He voluntarily stepped down after two terms, teaching the world that institutions matter more than individuals.
Final Thought
A successful post-war leader is not just the one who wins the war—but the one who guides the country from a state of emergency to a stable, institutional state, whose fate does not depend on one individual.
General Burhan has a real opportunity to write his name in history with letters of light—and to reshape Sudan’s destiny for the better.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=5253