The Case for Military Rule

By Rashid Abdul Rahim

Throughout Sudan’s history, leftist forces have consistently criticized the military, labelling it with derogatory terms such as “dictatorial” and “oppressive” and adopting slogans like “the army belongs in the barracks.” Yet, when the left assumed power, it proved to be authoritarian and responsible for atrocities, as seen during events like the Guest House massacre in July.
The left has historically been a source of corruption, from the nationalization policies of the May era to the dismantling and enabling practices of December. Their governance led to some of the worst political and economic performances in Sudan’s history, culminating in the current devastating war.
On the other hand, party-led governments have been among the most inept and were often the root cause of military coups.
Military Achievements
In contrast, military-led governments have brought about significant achievements. During General Ibrahim Abboud’s era, major industries were established, including canning factories, while education flourished, reaching urban areas and nomadic communities alike. Sports also developed notably under his rule. Even in terms of freedoms, Abboud’s governance was relatively inclusive, as evidenced by the Communist Party’s presence in the Central Council Parliament.
The much-maligned “Ingaz” government (1989–2019) allowed the left to significantly participate in drafting Sudan’s 2005 Constitution, which is regarded as one of the best the country has seen. The government also achieved major milestones such as building oil refineries (now destroyed by the rebellion), dams, and universities.
Today’s Reality
Currently, Sudan is at a critical juncture. The army, under General Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan, now leads the Sovereignty Council, a body that political forces—including leftist ones—helped shape. These forces appointed the Prime Minister, dominated the Council of Ministers with their party leaders, and obstructed the establishment of a parliament and a constitutional court, tying Sudan’s fate to foreign interests.
By divine will, the Sudanese Armed Forces now govern and are leading a historic military campaign to defeat the rebellion. This campaign has preserved both the armed forces and the nation as a whole.
Military Leadership in Action
Under the military’s strategic planning, the war effort has been meticulously managed while governance has remained open to all sectors. The army has united diverse forces, including reserve fighters, volunteers, tribal groups, and joint forces, under a common goal.
Politically, the military leadership has engaged with a wide range of entities, from traditional parties to Sufi orders, Ansar Al-Sunna, and tribal and clan councils. On the international stage, leaders such as Al-Burhan, Kabashi, and Ibrahim Jaber have undertaken extensive diplomatic efforts, showcasing openness and effective foreign relations.
Notably, political parties have been absent from these critical engagements.
The Path Forward
Following its significant military victories, the armed forces are now the most capable entity to lead Sudan through its current challenges and toward a new phase.
Sudan requires a transitional period under military leadership to prepare political forces for governance. After this period, power can return to the people through democratic processes based on:
Free elections
A national parliament
An independent constitutional court
An autonomous judiciary
A legitimate government
This transitional phase would ensure the military’s honourable return to its primary role of safeguarding and securing the nation.

Leave a comment