Power, Legitimacy, and the Contest for Political Control
By Zain Al-Abidin Saleh Abdel Rahman
Political theorists agree that politics requires both power and legitimacy. Power is the capacity to enforce the law, protect state sovereignty, and safeguard national and citizens’ interests. At the same time, legitimacy is essential to regulate that power, restrain its excesses, and ensure that those who wield it are held accountable. This balance is fundamental to stability, peace, and the pursuit of justice within society.
The relationship between power and legitimacy cannot be maintained through slogans or by one side imposing pressure on another. Rather, it requires political awareness that makes this equation acceptable and sustainable for all. Each actor must seek to engage the other in a way that serves the national interest, allowing political and social stability to prevail, creating an environment conducive to development in all its forms, advancing society and the nation, and expanding justice and freedoms.
Political competition in any country depends on the social base of each party. Political forces with limited public support face two options: either wait and work patiently to convince the public of their ideas and programs, or resort to force to stage a coup in order to seize power. In the latter case, they will not establish a democratic system, because they did not come to power through democratic means; they will instead rely on the same force that brought them to power to preserve their rule.
Another dangerous phenomenon threatening the political process and the very sovereignty of the state—one that poses a serious challenge to Sudan’s political future—is when political groups willingly allow themselves to become instruments of foreign agendas. Such groups effectively turn into executors of decisions made abroad, and must monopolize force, with external backing, to protect their political order. This shift turns internal political competition into a confrontation between domestic actors, some of whom draw their strength from foreign powers whose agendas have nothing to do with the interests of Sudanese citizens. This dynamic is a key driver of the ongoing war.
There are also actors who, because of their formative experiences, long refused to enter the political arena and avoided engaging in politics, choosing instead to operate under alternative labels they believed superior. When such groups eventually join politics late, their capacities tend to be limited, and personal interests become their primary compass. As a result, they fail to manage political conflict in a way that secures meaningful gains for the project they claim to represent. This creates openings for foreign agendas, particularly when these actors are unable to present a coherent political vision outlining their views on the future of the state and its politics.
When power overwhelms legitimacy, the path inevitably leads toward authoritarianism. Legitimacy, however, does not arise on its own; it emerges only when a balance of power exists within society. Legitimacy itself relies on power to enforce it, while simultaneously working to regulate and legalize that power, ensuring it remains subordinate to the rule of law.
May God grant us clarity of insight.
