Wars are not fought with weapons alone, nor are their outcomes decided solely on the battlefield. There are other fronts no less dangerous, foremost among them the economic front, where citizens’ suffering and the pressures of daily life can become tools for undermining social cohesion and public confidence in state institutions.
Sudan, which has been engulfed in a fierce war since April 2023, is now facing a complex convergence of military confrontation, economic pressure and escalating drone attacks at an exceptionally sensitive time.
This escalation coincides with advances made by the Sudanese army and allied forces on the battlefronts, particularly in the west of the country. Under such circumstances, living conditions become part of the conflict equation. If economic hardship worsens without an effective government response, it can erode citizens’ patience.
Sudanese citizens today are living at the heart of the storm. The crisis is evident in the continuous and volatile rise in commodity prices, the erosion of incomes and the decline in household purchasing power. People go to bed amid a fuel crisis and wake up to a bread crisis, while salaries fail to cover basic needs. The burden grows heavier with students returning to school, as education and transportation costs rise and options narrow for low-income families.
Against this backdrop, some government decisions, such as the ban on fava bean imports, raise questions about the extent to which their immediate impact on markets and citizens’ livelihoods has been taken into account. Even decisions intended to protect local production or regulate trade require careful assessment of their consequences.
It is not enough for the government to make decisions and then expect citizens to bear the consequences. It must explain the reasoning behind them, disclose their objectives, clarify the available alternatives and indicate how long it will take for their results to materialize. Effective communication is not a media luxury. It is part of crisis management and an essential element in strengthening the home front.
The pressures facing Sudan are inseparable from disruptions in the global economy. The Russia-Ukraine war has cast a shadow over energy and grain markets, while regional tensions, amid the US-Israeli confrontation with Iran and the war in Yemen, have further disrupted oil and gas supplies and trade through the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab.
These developments are reflected in the cost of importing fuel, fertilizers and agricultural inputs, increasing the burden on domestic farming and weakening the ability of many farmers to continue production. This is compounded by climate fluctuations and scarce rainfall, which could lead to lower crop yields and place further pressure on food prices.
In this context, the authorities raised the customs exchange rate for the dollar by more than 29 percent, in the fifth adjustment since the beginning of the year, coinciding with the dollar’s exchange rate on the parallel market reaching record levels. As a result, import costs rise, with the effects passed on to commodity prices, requiring a careful assessment of the social and productive repercussions.
The war has forced the state to devote a large share of its limited resources to the war effort. While protecting the country and its institutions remains an overriding necessity as the fighting continues, prolonging the war means further depletion of resources and deeper suffering for citizens. This makes the pursuit of political and societal consensus no less important than strengthening defensive capabilities.
Hence the importance of a national dialogue that broadens participation, addresses the roots of the crisis and lays the foundations for solutions that safeguard Sudan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Any serious dialogue process requires national will, practical guarantees and an environment that allows social and political forces to participate without exclusion.
Obstructing such a process, whether because of the calculations of domestic parties or external interference, risks prolonging the war and increasing its humanitarian and economic costs.
What is needed today is an emergency plan to ease the burden on citizens. It should include ensuring supplies of essential goods and fuel, reviewing decisions that have a direct impact on prices, expanding support for those most severely affected and guaranteeing that supplies reach areas in need. Yet however important an immediate response may be, it will not suffice without a strategic vision that addresses the structural imbalances in the economy.
Sudan possesses considerable resources: the Nile and its tributaries, rainfall and groundwater, agricultural land, livestock and minerals. These resources offer an opportunity for development, but they can also become a source of competing interests and ambitions in the absence of strong institutions and sound governance.
Agriculture and food security should therefore be at the forefront of the national project, through investment in irrigation, improved seeds, access to financing, fertilizers and fuel, the rehabilitation of roads and storage and processing facilities, and better links between production and markets. Only then can the vision of Sudan as the breadbasket of the Arab world be transformed into a reality that serves its citizens first and opens broader horizons for exports and development.
Sudan’s battle is not merely a battle of arms, nor is it solely a struggle over prices and resources. It is a battle over the state’s ability to endure, the citizen’s right to a dignified life and the future of a country with the resources and potential to rise again. True victory will come when the sacrifices of the present are transformed into a national project that delivers peace, stability and production, and makes Sudan’s wealth a source of strength for its people rather than a cause of their depletion.
