Comparative Insights from Libya and Ivory Coast on Dual Power Dynamics
Introduction
The emergence of rival governments, where multiple factions assert legitimacy as a nation’s governing authority, severely threatens state sovereignty and stability. Such divisions, often rooted in civil conflict, political fragmentation, or contested power transitions, can lead to prolonged instability, territorial splits, and foreign interference. In Africa, this phenomenon has been vividly illustrated in countries like Libya and Ivory Coast, where competing power structures have shaped national trajectories with divergent outcomes. Sudan, engulfed in a civil war since April 2023, appears to be on the cusp of a similar crisis, with the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) maintaining a de facto government in Port Sudan and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) potentially establishing parallel administrative structures in areas under its control, such as parts western Sudan.
This article comprehensively examines Sudan’s emerging dual power crisis, situating it within the broader context of African states that have grappled with rival governments. Analyzing historical and contemporary cases—primarily Libya’s post-2011 division and Ivory Coast’s civil wars from 2002 to 2011—explores the causes, dynamics, and resolutions of such conflicts, drawing lessons for Sudan’s trajectory. The leads argue that while Sudan shares structural similarities with these cases, its unique historical and geopolitical context, coupled with significant external involvement, complicates prospects for resolution. This article aims to illuminate the challenges facing Sudan and the potential pathways toward stability through detailed comparisons and analysis.
Historical Context
Sudan’s Political Evolution
Sudan’s political history is a complex narrative of authoritarian rule, civil conflict, and fragile transitions. Since gaining independence from British-Egyptian rule in 1956, the country has faced deep-seated ethnic, religious, and regional divides. These tensions fueled prolonged civil wars with southern rebels, culminating in South Sudan’s secession in 2011, which stripped Sudan of 75% of its oil reserves and plunged it into economic crisis. Under President Omar Al-Bashir, who ruled from 1989 to 2019, Sudan adopted an Islamist ideology, facing international isolation due to human rights abuses in Darfur, which led to sanctions and an International Criminal Court indictment in 2009.
Mass protests in 2019 toppled Al-Bashir, ushering in a transitional government under the Sovereign Council, a power-sharing arrangement between military leaders, including the SAF and RSF, and civilian factions. The council aimed to guide Sudan toward democratic elections, but disputes over the RSF’s integration into the regular army and the military’s dominance derailed progress. In October 2021, a military coup led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan dissolved the civilian government, setting the stage for the civil war that erupted in April 2023 between the SAF and the RSF, led by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti.
The Concept of Rival Governments
Rival governments arise when competing factions claim legitimacy as a state’s sole authority, often controlling distinct territories and seeking international recognition. This phenomenon, sometimes termed “dual power” or “divided sovereignty,” typically stems from civil wars, coups, or contested elections, resulting in parallel administrations with conflicting agendas. In Africa, such divisions are frequently driven by ethnic, regional, or ideological cleavages, exacerbated by external interventions that support rival factions. While historical examples exist globally, such as China’s warlord era or Yemen’s ongoing conflict, Africa’s post-colonial states, with their fragile institutions and colonial legacies, provide particularly fertile ground for such crises.
Sudan’s Current Dual Power Crisis
The Civil War and Territorial Division
Sudan’s civil war, ignited on April 15, 2023, stems from a power struggle between the SAF and RSF, two military factions that previously collaborated in the 2021 coup. The SAF, led by Al-Burhan, represents the traditional army establishment, while the RSF, a paramilitary force rooted in Darfur’s Janjaweed militias, seeks greater autonomy and influence. The conflict has caused thousands of deaths, displaced millions, and devastated Sudan’s infrastructure, with no clear resolution in sight as of May 2025.
The SAF maintains control over Port Sudan, a critical Red Sea port, and parts of eastern and northern Sudan, operating as the de facto government recognized by the United Nations and most international actors. Its authority is bolstered by support from Egypt and, to some extent, Saudi Arabia, which view Al-Burhan as a stabilizing force. The RSF controls significant portions of Khartoum, Darfur, and western Sudan, disrupting the capital’s governance and forcing the SAF to relocate its administrative hub to Port Sudan.
There are indications that the RSF is establishing local administrative structures in its territories, including councils to manage services like water, electricity, and security. While the RSF has not formally declared a separate government, these actions suggest a move toward parallel governance, potentially foreshadowing a rival administration. This development aligns with concerns about an anticipated government in RSF-controlled areas, though no official proclamation has been confirmed as of May 2025.
Case Studies of Rival Governments in Africa
Libya: A Protracted Division
After the 2011 overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya descended into chaos, with competing militias and political factions filling the power vacuum. By 2014, two primary administrations emerged: the Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli, recognized by the United Nations, and the House of Representatives (HoR) in Tobruk, backed by General Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army. The GNA, supported by Turkey and Qatar, controlled western Libya, while the HoR, backed by Russia, Egypt, and the UAE, dominated the east and south.
Each government operated its institutions, including central banks and oil companies, leading to economic fragmentation. International efforts to unify the factions failed, and fighting persisted until a UN-brokered ceasefire in 2020 led to an interim Government of National Unity. Despite this, tensions remain, with Haftar’s forces retaining significant influence. Libya’s experience underscores how external interventions can prolong dual government scenarios, delaying reconciliation.
Ivory Coast: From Division to Resolution
Ivory Coast’s dual power crisis unfolded during its First Civil War from 2002 to 2007, triggered by ethnic and political tensions following a 1999 coup. By 2002, the country was split: the government, led by President Laurent Gbagbo, controlled the south, while the Forces Nouvelles rebels held the north. The insurgents established administrative structures in their territory, managing taxes and services and effectively acting as a parallel government.
A 2007 power-sharing agreement appointed rebel leader Guillaume Soro as prime minister. However, the 2010 presidential election, won by Alassane Ouattara but contested by Gbagbo, sparked the Second Civil War from 2010 to 2011. French and UN forces intervened, arresting Gbagbo and installing Ouattara, ending the crisis. Ivory Coast’s resolution highlights the role of decisive international intervention in overcoming dual power structures, though it required significant external force.
Other African Examples
In Mali in 2012, Tuareg rebels and Islamists declared the northern region of Azawad independent, establishing a short-lived administration before French intervention restored government control. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, various rebel groups have controlled eastern territories, but these have rarely claimed national legitimacy, distinguishing them from Sudan’s case. These examples illustrate the spectrum of dual power scenarios, from temporary separatist movements to entrenched rival governments.
Comparisons with Sudan
Sudan’s emerging dual power crisis shares structural similarities with Libya and Ivory Coast but is shaped by its unique context. Like Libya, Sudan’s conflict stems from a power struggle following the ousting of a long-standing leader, with external actors supporting rival factions, complicating peace efforts. Similar to Ivory Coast, Sudan’s war involves ethnic and political tensions, and international intervention could potentially resolve the crisis.
However, Sudan differs in key ways. Unlike Libya and Ivory Coast, where rival factions explicitly declared themselves as governments, the RSF has not yet formalized a separate administration, though its local governance efforts suggest this possibility. Sudan’s history of territorial secession, with South Sudan’s independence in 2011, raises unique concerns about further fragmentation, a risk not present in Libya or Ivory Coast. Additionally, the SAF enjoys broader international recognition than the RSF, akin to the Ivory Coast’s government, whereas Libya’s GNA and HoR both secured significant external backing.
The following dimensions highlight these comparisons:
- Cause: Sudan’s crisis arises from a military power struggle, similar to Libya’s post-Gaddafi chaos and the Ivory Coast’s ethnic-political divide.
- Nature of Rival Powers: The SAF operates as the recognized government. At the same time, the RSF’s potential administration is nascent, unlike Libya’s formal GNA and HoR or Ivory Coast’s clear government-rebel split.
- Territorial Control: Sudan’s SAF controls Port Sudan and eastern areas, with the RSF holding parts of Kordofan and the west. This mirrors Libya’s west-east divide and the Ivory Coast’s south-north split.
- International Role: External support in Sudan (Egypt, Gulf, Russia) parallels Libya’s Turkey-Russia dynamics and Ivory Coast’s French-UN intervention.
- Resolution Prospects: Sudan’s ongoing conflict and fragmented international involvement suggest a Libya-like stalemate, though the Ivory Coast’s resolution offers hope for a coordinated solution.
Analysis
Sudan’s dual power crisis, though still in its early stages, carries significant implications for its future, as informed by the experiences of Libya and the Ivory Coast. The RSF’s efforts to establish local governance in its territories indicate a potential trajectory toward formalizing a rival government, which could entrench Sudan’s division, as seen in Libya’s decade-long conflict. Libya’s case demonstrates that external backing can sustain hostilities by providing resources, a risk in Sudan, where external aid could prolong the war. The involvement of multiple foreign actors threatens to transform Sudan into a proxy battleground, exacerbating humanitarian and economic crises.
In contrast, Ivory Coast’s resolution offers a model where unified international intervention decisively ended the conflict. For Sudan, achieving a similar outcome would require coordinated pressure from regional and global powers, potentially through the African Union or the UN, to enforce a ceasefire and power-sharing agreement. However, the divergent agendas of external actors make such coordination challenging, mirroring Libya’s fragmented international response.
Sudan’s historical context adds urgency to resolving the crisis. The secession of South Sudan in 2011, following decades of civil war, serves as a stark reminder of the risks of territorial fragmentation. With histories of rebellion, regions like Darfur and Blue Nile could exploit the current division to push for autonomy or independence, particularly given the RSF’s control over Darfur, which has deep roots. This risk of further fragmentation distinguishes Sudan from Libya and Ivory Coast, where territorial integrity remained intact despite internal divisions.
Potential outcomes for Sudan include:
- Prolonged Conflict: Continued external support for rival factions could lead to a Libya-like stalemate, with severe humanitarian and economic consequences.
- Partition: Persistent division might result in de facto or formal partition, though the RSF’s territories lack South Sudan’s cohesive identity.
- Reconciliation: A power-sharing agreement, like the one in Ivory Coast, could resolve the crisis, but it would require significant international pressure and concessions from both sides.
The path forward depends on internal dynamics—whether the SAF and RSF can negotiate a ceasefire—and external coordination to avoid proxy warfare. Sudan’s strategic location, with its Red Sea ports and proximity to conflict zones like Yemen, amplifies the stakes, necessitating a unified international approach.
Conclusion
Sudan’s emerging dual power crisis, with the SAF and RSF carving out rival spheres of control, places it at a critical juncture reminiscent of Libya and Ivory Coast. Libya’s protracted conflict warns of the dangers of external meddling, while Ivory Coast’s resolution highlights the potential for decisive intervention. Sudan’s unique history, marked by secession and regional grievances, adds urgency to resolving the crisis before it leads to further fragmentation. As the international community navigates its response, the lessons from Africa’s past dual government scenarios underscore the need for coordinated diplomacy to restore Sudan’s unity and stability. The road ahead is fraught, but historical precedents offer both caution and hope for a nation seeking to heal its divisions.
