Sudanese civil society rejects Burhan’s dialogue offer, leaving no credible peace track in sight
Civil society groups in Sudan have dismissed army chief Abdel Fattah al‑Burhan’s proposed dialogue, calling it political cover that ignores the realities of the war and refusing to participate under current conditions.
Key Sudanese civil society groups have rejected a proposed dialogue initiative put forward by army chief Abdel Fattah al‑Burhan, closing off one of the few visible political channels in a war that has already devastated large parts of the country.
The groups, in statements reported on 11 September, described Burhan’s initiative as political cover amid the ongoing conflict in Sudan. They argued that the proposal does not address the realities of the war and made clear they would not take part in talks under the current conditions.
Their stance underscores how little trust exists between civilian actors and the military leadership. Civil society organizations, which include professional associations and grassroots groups, are among the few remaining structures trying to represent the interests of ordinary Sudanese in a landscape dominated by armed actors.
For millions of people caught in the fighting, the rejection means there is still no credible, broadly accepted forum in which civilians can shape a way out of the conflict. Instead, the war continues to be driven by commanders and their allies, with civilians bearing the consequences in the form of displacement, insecurity and the collapse of basic services.
From the perspective of Burhan and his allies, the dialogue plan offered a chance to present themselves domestically and internationally as seeking a political solution. Civil society’s refusal to participate denies the initiative that legitimacy and signals that, in their view, the process on offer is not designed to confront core issues of power, accountability and security.
For regional and international mediators, the episode is a setback. Many existing efforts rely on bringing together military factions and civilian representatives in some form of dialogue. If prominent civil groups see such frameworks as little more than cover for entrenched power holders, those mediation formats will struggle to gain traction.
The next steps to watch will be whether Burhan revises his proposal in response to the criticism, whether alternative civilian‑led initiatives emerge with wider backing, and how external actors adjust their approach. Any move by Sudan’s armed leaders to accept a framework that gives civilians real authority, rather than just a symbolic role, would mark a significant change from the current deadlock.
Sources
- OSINT