The Military belongs in the barracks: The different between reality and slogans “2”… How lgitimacy is manufactured when politics collapses? 

Dr. Nahed Mohamed Al-Hassan

In the memory of many, the military didn’t suddenly participate in politics. They didn’t rely -solely- on staging an entrance through the door of a coup, but utilized the cracks in trust left behind by politics, as well. Through long periods of waiting, postponed promises, and speeches that multiplied without achieving any results. In such gray areas, legitimacy begins to transform from a legal concept into a psychological feeling: from “whoever we elected” to “whoever we believe is capable.” 

Social psychology describes this moment with painful accuracy. When the political system fails to provide the people with a sense of meaning and control, individuals seek an alternative that alleviates anxiety, even if it proves to be harsh. Legitimacy, at this juncture, is not built on free acceptance, but on a feeling of temporary security. And the Armed Forces, with its assertive language and solid structure, presented itself as a ready-made answer in a confused world. 

Nevertheless, this legitimacy is far from being innocent. 

Its the legitimacy of fear, not the legitimacy of a social contract. 

In political science, legitimacy is understood as an implicit agreement between society and the ruling power: “We grant you the right to govern in exchange for protecting rights and regulating dissent.” When politics collapses, this agreement is thereby broken. People no longer ask: How are we governed? But rather: Who will address the collapse? Thus, the standard of acceptance shifts. The ability to impose order becomes a substitute for the ability to represent the public will. 

This particular shift is dangerous because it is silent. 

Its not enshrined in constitutions, but rather seeps into the collective consciousness. 

In societies exhausted by violence, a particular form of unspoken psychological complicity takes shape: “Let them rule, just so the bullets fall silent.” However, this silence is unsustainable -and that is the unspoken part. For the force invoked in an effort to alleviate pain quickly becomes part of its cause. 

From a sociological perspective, the military institution, at this moment, transforms from a functional apparatus into a symbol. A symbol of discipline, masculinity, prestige, and sometimes salvation. This symbol is amplified in public discourse, and the expectations projected upon it ? no institution can bear. The Armed Forces is expected to be patriotic, ethical, neutral, and decisive all at once. When it fails —and it inevitably does— anger is redirected not at the institution, but at the individuals. 

In Sudan, this equation is even more complex. 

For legitimacy has not only been withdrawn from politics, but it has never been fully established. The State itself has failed to complete its transition from a post-colonial State to a State of citizenship. It has remained suspended between the military, sectarianism, ideology, and peripheral wars. In this chronic vacuum, the military has not only constituted an intervening force, but has become one of the pillars of enforced continuity. 

Nevertheless, continuity doesn’t equal stability. 

Political philosophy alerts us to an age-old paradox: Force can impose obedience, but it cannot create commitment. Obedience produces silence, not trust. Regimes that build their legitimacy on silence are forced to escalate violence the longer it persists. Thus, the State, from a unifying framework becomes an expanded security apparatus, and politics becomes a matter of control, not participation. 

The problem -at which juncture- isn’t with the military as individuals, nor even as an abstract institution, rather, when the military is required to act as a substitute for politics. In such a scenario, the military and politics will be drained, in addition, society will be without any genuine tools for expression or reform. 

Therefore, the slogan “The Military Belongs in the Barracks” remains incomplete without posing a more difficult question: 

What about the politics that leave the barracks open in the first place? 

Restoring the army to its professional role cannot be achieved through orders or slogans alone, but rather by rebuilding a viable civilian legitimacy. One able to convince the people that disagreements can be addressed without guns, that democratic gradualism is less costly than forced resolution, and that the temporary chaos of debate is far more merciful than a silent regime governed by fear. 

In the next article, we will delve into the most sensitive issue: 

How are armies ideologically infiltrated? 

And how does military professionalism become a tool in the hands of narrow political agendas, without many realizing it until it’s too late? 

To be continued