By Amjad Fareed
The widespread and uniform nature of the Rapid Support Forces’ (RSF) violations across Sudan, targeting various segments of the population, reveals the falsehood behind the militia’s claims of representing any specific ethnic or regional identity. These narratives are attempts by the RSF and its allies to justify their war and maintain their presence in the political arena. The militia’s agenda in this conflict is not rooted in the social dynamics of specific Sudanese groups; rather, it is purely about asserting dominance and control over Sudan to serve its own selfish and regional ambitions.
However, the danger of succumbing to this ethnic narrative—intensely promoted by the RSF to justify its war and recruit fighters along ethnic lines—extends far beyond the current conflict. Not only does this narrative contribute to the ongoing bloodshed, destruction of infrastructure, and complicate efforts to end the war, but it also creates deep fractures in Sudan’s social fabric that could have detrimental effects for decades to come.
Anyone genuinely seeking to end the war and alleviate the suffering of the Sudanese people cannot endorse or propagate such a narrative. The militia represents no one but itself, and its actions are solely aimed at fulfilling the interests of its leaders, their allies, and the foreign backers supporting them. These parties alone bear the responsibility for the crimes committed in pursuit of their agendas.
Indian philosopher and Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has discussed the dangers of identity-based politics, which are often used to overlook and disregard pressing economic and social issues that have a more direct impact on people’s lives. This is clearly evident in Sudan today, where ethnic rhetoric is being deployed for political posturing and to distract from the tangible crimes and violations being committed against Sudanese citizens of all backgrounds.
Sen has also highlighted the inherently multi-faceted and overlapping nature of identities, warning against reducing individuals and groups to a singular ethnic lens. Similarly, Francis Fukuyama has examined the challenges posed by ethnic identity politics, which are often exploited to deepen societal divisions by prioritizing specific group identities over broader, more inclusive frameworks. This is precisely what is happening in Sudan today. Fukuyama advocates redefining national belonging based on unifying principles such as justice, equality, and respect for the rule of law, rather than on politicized ethnic identities that undermine these ideals.
If identity-based politics, which are often used for internal and external political blackmail, continue to dominate without being confronted and debunked, they will transform the natural diversity within societies into a perpetual source of conflict. While such politics are easy to market to the public, they serve as a convenient refuge for politicians incapable of addressing the material issues that matter to people, such as livelihoods, security, and well-being. Instead of creating programs or adopting practical ideas that positively impact lives, they resort to identity slogans and ethnic politics to garner support.
This approach, while serving the selfish interests and ambitions of power-hungry politicians, exacerbates the disasters facing their people. The daily tragedies and crimes in Sudan, which receive attention only as tools for political maneuvering, are a testament to this reality. It is no surprise that the same parties promoting the ethnic war narrative in Sudan and aligning themselves with the crimes of the RSF were identified by former UN envoy to Sudan Volker Perthes in his March 20, 2023, report to the UN Security Council. He described these participants in the pre-war political process as being solely focused on securing their involvement in the next government rather than pursuing any meaningful democratic transition.
The failure to address criticisms of that political process led to the outbreak of war. Now, the same parties that once championed that process have adopted slogans and narratives that escalate and prolong the conflict. In Sudan’s case, the destructive role of ethnic politics is particularly evident. The ousted regime of Omar al-Bashir weaponized ethnic identities to consolidate its grip on power, promoting “us versus them” narratives that deepened social fractures. While these divisions temporarily shored up support for his regime, they proved shallow and unstable, eventually succumbing to the December Revolution’s wave of change.
If the deceptive ethnic rhetoric adopted by the RSF is not countered, Sudan risks becoming trapped in an endless cycle of conflict and division. Addressing this narrative requires a collective effort and a clear understanding of its falsehood and dangers. Ethnic identity politics are no different from ideological doctrines that exploit religion to manipulate public sentiment for political gain, a phenomenon Sudanese people endured for decades under the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood. This regime built a legacy of corruption and oppression, ultimately dismantled by the Sudanese people’s uprising during the December 2018 Revolution.
Claims that this war fundamentally opposes the December Revolution and its noble national ideals cannot be taken seriously unless they confront and dismantle the narratives and political maneuvers that contradict those ideals. These narratives often serve foreign agendas and self-serving ambitions at the expense of an entire nation.
De-ethnicizing Sudan’s war is not only essential to ending the conflict but is a matter of existential importance for preserving Sudan as a nation and a people.