A recent forum in Sudan, part of a series of dialogues organized by "Nadaa Salam Sudan" and coordinated by "The Advocacy Group for Peace in Sudan (AGPS)," has concluded that the future of the security and military sector cannot be reduced to merely reforming the military. Instead, it is closely tied to the nature of the state, who holds the decision to use force, and how armed institutions are subject to civilian authority and the law. The forum, which took place on October 22, 2026, brought together academics, researchers, civil activists, and individuals with military, police, judicial, and human rights experience.
The dialogue, led by Shams al-Din and opened by Dr. Asmaa al-Na'im and Dr. Essam Abbas, featured a keynote address by Dr. Luka Piok and participation from Dr. Francis Ding in the opening and closing sessions. The discussion was based on a study titled "Sudanese Perceptions of Ending War and Peace," which indicated that 84.6% of respondents believe that the involvement of military and security agencies in politics is an obstacle to a civilian democratic state. Approximately 80% hold the military institution and its allies responsible for the conflict.
The study also revealed that 45.9% of participants advocate for comprehensive restructuring, while 37.5% prefer gradual reform through integration. A significant 93.1% support a civilian authority that is elected and accountable. The forum's organizers emphasized that the repetition of a particular opinion within the forum does not measure its prevalence among Sudanese people. The discussion highlighted that security is a public concern that cannot be defined solely by the military and is not limited to protecting the regime.
The keynote address stressed that security is a public issue that requires a national strategy based on evidence and dialogue with society and institutions. It also noted that the military, police, and security agencies, even when part of the problem, can be part of the solution. The forum's discussions included the police, intelligence services, semi-military formations, militias, and the militarization of societies, with an emphasis on the different functions of each institution and the need for individual treatment.
Three main directions emerged from the forum: rebuilding and reconstituting, based on international experiences such as Costa Rica; rebuilding or transformative reform through gradual change; and gradual reform with radical changes in doctrine, structure, leadership, and oversight. However, the boundaries between these options were not fixed, and some proponents of radical change accepted gradualism, while some advocates of reform called for radical changes.
A critical question that remained unanswered is how to maintain security functions and protect populations during the transition. The forum referenced experiences with security agencies in 1985 and 2019 but did not provide a definitive historical narrative due to differing participant assessments. The discussion also touched on the priorities of stopping the war and building the future state, with some emphasizing the need to address the root causes of the conflict and others calling for immediate action to stop the fighting.
The forum's statement highlighted the importance of distinguishing between the legitimate needs of individuals, such as salaries, housing, training, and career prospects, and the privileges of economic and political leaders. Participants stressed the need for a professional, rather than an elitist, approach to security and the importance of accountability and transitional justice in the reform process. The forum concluded without adopting a specific model of reform, a security plan, or a leadership structure, but it did agree to prepare a report and continue the dialogue.
Key points
- The Sudanese forum redefines the question of security and state building.
- The future of the security and military sector is closely tied to the nature of the state.
- The forum concluded without adopting a specific model of reform or a security plan.
