Summary

Sudan’s current fragmentation can be better understood by examining its longer history as a patchwork of contested political authorities rather than assuming it has always operated as a unitary, centrally governed state. Drawing on archival research into the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century political system, the research explores how geography, trade, infrastructure and political interests have shaped autonomy and centres of power. Historical evidence challenges the assumption that Darfur could not function as an autonomous economic unit and suggests that Kordofan may develop into a borderland contested by several authorities. Sudan is unlikely to return to its pre-war level of centralisation, even if it remains formally unified. Understanding these historical patterns can help policymakers anticipate how political authority, regional autonomy and economic relationships may evolve within Sudan and across neighbouring states.

Key Findings

• What appears to be contemporary political disorder may partly represent the continuation of patterns of contested authority rooted in Sudan’s precolonial history.
• The commonly held assumption that Darfur is not viable as an autonomous economic unit is not supported by the historical evidence. Darfur has frequently maintained trade routes independently of the central Nile Valley.
• As Sudan’s oil industry declines, Darfur is likely to become increasingly important economically and demographically, with trading links extending across the Sahel, the Sahara, and central and eastern Africa.
• The success of a more autonomous or independent Darfur would probably depend more on its political organisation than on economic factors, particularly its ability to balance the interests of different constituencies.
• Kordofan has developed into a contested region with several competing centres of power. If neither Khartoum nor a Darfur-based authority can govern it directly, local political entities may emerge as both centres compete for political and economic control.
• Sudan is unlikely to be as centralised after the conflict as it was before the war, even if it remains formally unified.

Policy Implications

• Planning for Sudan’s political future should account for the possibility of a formally unified but substantially less centralised state, with authority distributed among regional and local centres of power.
• Assessments of Darfur’s future should not assume that greater autonomy would make it economically unviable. Its established cross-border trading relationships and growing economic and demographic importance are central considerations.
• The viability of political arrangements in Darfur will depend on structures that balance its diverse constituencies rather than favouring one group and marginalising others.
• Policy and programming in Kordofan should consider the potential emergence of new borderlands and local political entities as competing authorities seek control over different parts of the region.
• Demands for autonomy in South Kordofan and Blue Nile State may have consequences beyond Sudan, particularly for neighbouring Ethiopia and South Sudan.

This policy brief is a part of the Historical and contemporary centres of power in Sudan project.