Power without responsibility: Sudan’s leaders burn the nation to escape accountability

When leaders prioritize power over governance, the result is a devastating cycle of conflict, corruption, and collapse

Abdel-Fattah Al-Burhan, head of the Sudanese Armed Forces, addresses the UN General Assembly’s seventy-ninth session. Photo: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

When the Sudanese government’s budget leaked in January 2021, it committed to security and defence spending of around US$3.6 billion, roughly a third of the country’s public revenues. In comparison, education was allocated just over US$112 million, 32 times less than the military spending.

This kind of disgusting disparity is what happens when leaders do not want to govern their country, but rule it.

No doubt that governing is a difficult business. It is something that requires the ability to understand trade-offs, appreciate that you may disappoint as many or perhaps more people than you please, and consider whether you want to make some short-term losses in exchange for longer-term benefits.

With all those responsibilities and more, perhaps it’s hardly surprising to see many leaders who are keen to shed the duties of power, and instead enjoy its trappings—the prestige, the acclaim, the opportunities for enrichment. So desperate to cling on to these powers are Sudanese rivals, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (commonly known as Hemedti), that they are currently fighting a war so disastrous that it has already caused the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. 

The conflict that began when the two previous allies turned on each other in April last year has put 24.8 million people in Sudan in need of humanitarian assistance, with well over 10 million people displaced internally or abroad. Tens of millions face a famine that is entirely man made. In the face of this huge need, the international humanitarian appeal has still only raised half of the funding it needs to respond. 

The appalling toll that the war between Burhan and Hemedti has exacted on the people of Sudan is beyond just these shocking figures. The heartbreaking reports of lives lost, homes ransacked, communities shattered, are too much to bear.

The cruelest of ironies is that the conflict between Burhan’s Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and Hemedti’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF) is barely a struggle for power in any traditional sense. Neither side is interested in governing at the end of the conflict. Illuminating on this is Tahany Maalla’s incisive article exploring Hemedti and the RSF's difficulty building a political base. From a militia that enjoyed state sponsored impunity, they have found themselves walking a tightrope to translate battlefield gains into local legitimacy, while keeping a tight grip on internal leadership. At the same time, Burhan’s SAF offers no political vision for the country either. 

There is no clash of ideas between Burhan and Hemedti, what is driving the war is the two goals they share: holding on to the vast personal wealth they have expropriated from the country, and escaping criminal accountability for the many murderous acts they have each committed—from massacres during the transition, to war crimes committed in Darfur and even Yemen.

The ruinous conflict between Sudan’s military and paramilitary leaders, both desperate to rule but not to govern, is the apogee of a sinister current in global politics. 

The city of Derna in eastern Libya has been the subject of fierce fighting and power struggle since the revolution in 2011, coming under the rule of various different factions. One of these, the Libyan National Army, laid siege to Derna for two years. But despite being prepared to spend vast amounts in manpower and materiel on taking control of Derna, these factions have all been much less interested in actually governing the city. 

That neglect came to a head last year, when Storm Daniel hit the coast of Libya. Essential infrastructure that had not been properly maintained failed catastrophically, with the resulting flood killing more than 4,000 people, and washing a quarter of the city out to sea. 

Libya, a country with two governments but no governance.  

The kinds of leadership we see in Sudan and Libya are an attempt to do politics without the politics. To imagine that you can take whatever actions you want without the consequences—or at least no consequences for which you are prepared to be responsible.

When we consider the nihilism that results from of a narcissistic urge to exercise power combined with a sociopathic refusal to deal with the consequences of doing so, it is no surprise that Sudan’s Burhan and Hemedti were both enthusiastic about the Abraham Accords.. 

Perhaps the ultimate example of policy disengaged from politics on the ground, Donald Trump’s flagship Middle East project was an attempt to normalise Israel’s relations with the Arab world by simply pretending that Palestine and Palestinians do not exist. The Abraham Accords sought to make deals with states that might themselves rather forget about Palestinians, and then bribing or strong-arming other governments into joining them.

The Abraham Accords put an international seal on Israel’s own attempt to treat the existence of Palestinians as a security matter, to be dealt with through techno-militarization, rather than a political issue that required a political resolution. That assessment has proved to be an utterly and catastrophically wrong.

Where Israel’s politicians have however been correct in their analysis is anticipating the lack of diplomatic consequences for their political failures. The US and other states have been only too happy to continue the flow of arms and military aid into Israel, no matter how many times these weapons are used to target children, women, civilians, the sick, aid workers, and even UN peacekeepers. 

This utter lack of accountability is corrosive, and feeds back into a disastrous policy loop that cannot bring about sustainable peace. 

Support without guardrails, without redlines, without accountability is not something I would wish for. Throughout my career in activism, I have felt privileged to have received support from governments, funds, and philanthropists, and I have been proud to be accountable for every cent, every penny, every øre or öre that has been spent. The reporting, the accounting, the audits may have been onerous and time consuming but they have been necessary—not least to understand what worked, what didn’t, and how things can be done better.

Global development budgets are dwarfed by military spending, and to what end? Does the world seem safer and more secure for all that money spent? If a government’s education policy failed on the same level as so many defense policies have failed, it would be a national scandal. Why is it that those in receipt of development funding are seemingly held to a different standard to those receiving military aid? I suppose that, like taxes, such accountability is for the little people.

I don’t complain about oversight because accountability is a great good, and it is why many of us work in women’s rights activism in the first place—we want our governments to be accountable so we are happy to be transparent and responsible ourselves. Had we wanted there to be no consequence were we to be consistently wrong, we might instead have sought jobs at the comment desk of the New York Times, or in Washington DC think tanks.

Instead, we have focused on work at the grassroots on the big issues that bedevil us—conflict, inequality, injustice. 

For years, we activists have been making the case that more attention and investment should be going towards policies like women’s participation, with evidence that when women are involved in peace processes, they are more likely to succeed and peace is more likely to last. Too often, we have been dismissed by special envoys and advisors who see our priorities and solutions simply as “window dressing”. 

Many of the voices that dismissed us are the same to have  insisted that backing Burhan and Hemedti’s involvement in the Sudanese transitional process was the “pragmatic” thing to do—that including the Generals was the only way to maintain security in Sudan. That analysis was wrong. The international community bent over backwards for Burhan and Hemedti, and the pair still chose to burn the country rather than hand over power to a civilian government. Now the people of Sudan are paying the price. Some of those involved have the decency to feel contrite about their role in this mess, but many more carry on regardless, refusing to learn lessons, refusing accountability. 

We need those in power to be more wary of the gangsters in their midst. Aspiring to public office should be an admirable thing—in how many parliamentary chambers do members adopt the title ‘Honorable’? These politicians should be able to recognise when counterparts are desperate to hold power but fearful of accountability. 

Sudan is on fire primarily because two men view power not as means of improving the lives of their communities by taking on responsibilities and duties, but see it instead as the ultimate Get Out of Jail Free card. 

Who else does that remind me of?

---

---

Welcome to our new readers

It is such a pleasure to welcome our new readers joining us on Substack, I am so pleased that you are interested in hearing perspectives from our network. In Arabic, we say ‘welcome’ with ahlan wa sahlan, a simple phrase that comes from a longer and very beautiful formal salutation:

لَقَدْ صَادَفْتُمْ أَهْلًا وَوَطِئْتُمْ سَهْلًا

It can be translated literally as ‘you have found yourself among your own people, and tread upon even ground.’ I hope you will feel welcome, at home, and able to join in as we build a constructive and informative community through very difficult times. Thank you and ahlan.