If neither side of Sudan’s war represents legitimate governance, who does?

This is the question the international community now needs to confront.

The United States has said that neither the SAF nor the RSF represents legitimate governance in Sudan. At the same time, former Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok and the Somoud coalition are being engaged by international governments and institutions as important civilian interlocutors.

Engagement with Sudanese civilian voices is necessary.

But engagement is not the same as a popular mandate.

Somoud itself has called for an inclusive political process and for Sudanese civilian ownership of the country’s future.

That principle should apply consistently.

Who decides which civilian forces represent Sudan?

How are competing civilian voices brought into the process?

And, ultimately, how will Sudanese people themselves determine who has the legitimacy to govern them?

These are not questions for Washington, London, Brussels or New York to answer on Sudan’s behalf.

The international community can help create the conditions for a political settlement. It cannot manufacture the legitimacy of those who will govern Sudan.

Sudan’s future must be Sudanese-owned — not simply internationally endorsed.