Dabanga opinion barometer: Which Sudan general gave the more convincing speech?

In response to the recent UN speeches by rival generals – SAF leader Abdelfattah El Burhan and RSF commander Hemedti – we asked our audience: Which leader’s message did they find more convincing? The poll, conducted across Dabanga’s social media platforms, reflected a divided public opinion.

On Thursday evening, September 26, the chairperson of the Transitional Sovereignty Council, and commander-in-chief of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), Abdelfattah El Burhan, addressed the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York.

Just hours later, his rival, commander of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), Mohamed Hamdan ‘Hemedti’ Dagalo, delivered a video speech to the UN, broadcast through RSF platforms. Both leaders, embroiled in the ongoing conflict, used these speeches to justify their respective positions, each blaming the other for the country’s deepening crisis.

Last week, we asked our audience which speech they found more compelling. By September 30, our poll had been viewed an accumulative 24,953 times, received 2,245 interactions, and attracted nearly 100 comments. Here’s how the results broke down across various platforms:

• X (formerly Twitter): 53.7% of respondents found El Burhan’s speech more convincing, 28.9% favoured Hemedti’s, and 17.4% were undecided.
• Facebook: Out of 1,400 participants, 52% supported El Burhan, 35% backed Hemedti, and 13% couldn’t decide.
• Dabanga website: Here, 67% of voters favoured Hemedti’s speech, while 33% sided with El Burhan.

Mixed views

The public’s comments reflected a range of perspectives on the speeches’ content and political implications. While some saw both speeches as attempts to improve their public images, others viewed them as genuine calls for peace.

Daoud Jibril, commenting on Facebook, criticised both leaders, calling for an end to the power struggle and military rule, whether led by El Burhan or Hemedti. He emphasised the need for civilian leadership in Sudan.

In contrast, Ezz Ahmed, who identified himself as Egyptian, praised El Burhan’s speech for its strength and clarity. He appreciated El Burhan’s recognition of Arab nations supporting Sudan and his call for reforms to the UN Charter. Ahmed also noted El Burhan’s accusations against countries allegedly aiding the RSF.

Many others echoed similar sentiments, crediting El Burhan for his legitimacy and representation of Sudan at the UN. Mujahid Karar pointed out that El Burhan’s presence in New York lent credibility to his speech, while Hemedti’s remote video address raised doubts about its legitimacy.

However, not all responses were positive. Osama Okasha expressed indifference, stating that “the average Sudanese person is more concerned with returning to normal life than the political manoeuvres of the two generals”.

Ghasan El Hasan suggested that both speeches were aimed at securing external support rather than addressing the country’s internal challenges.

Others were more critical of Hemedti. Adnan Kahli questioned his understanding of international law and noted that El Burhan was the only leader invited to the UN General Assembly. El Fatih Abbas highlighted El Burhan’s position as Sudan’s legitimate representative at the UN, contrasting it with Hemedti’s unofficial status.

Voice messages received via Dabanga’s WhatsApp reflected similarly mixed views. One participant, who chose to remain anonymous, dismissed El Burhan’s speech as “filled with inaccuracies, particularly regarding the transfer of power to civilians”. He argued that given both leaders’ involvement in the October 25 coup, a civilian-led government remains impossible for now.

Another anonymous voice message participant criticised El Burhan’s speech for repeating old statements and failing to address the escalating economic and humanitarian crises. He noted that although the RSF controls much of Khartoum, it has yet to form a government, further complicating the conflict.

Nasreddin, in his voice message, argued that while both leaders’ speeches referenced peace and democratic transition, they were more concerned with enhancing their own images. He urged for real actions on the ground to end the war, rather than mere rhetoric.

Malik El Haj was blunt in his rejection of Hemedti’s speech, accusing the RSF leader of disregarding the lives of ordinary Sudanese civilians. He stated that “the people do not want either Hemedti or the RSF in power”.

On the other hand, some described Hemedti’s speech as more motivating, particularly in its call for the formation of new political platforms. However, scepticism remained high. Many felt that neither leader was committed to stopping the war, accusing them both of prolonging the conflict to further their own interests.

While El Burhan and Hemedti’s speeches drew attention on the international stage, they have done little to sway public opinion or provide a clear path to peace. The conflict in Sudan continues, and the people remain caught between two leaders vying for power amidst an ongoing complex humanitarian crisis.