The UN is leading a trilateral mechanism consisting of the United Nations Integrated Transition Assistance Mission in Sudan (UNITAMS), African Union Commission and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) "to facilitate a solution to the political crisis in Sudan" and to "support the Sudanese aspirations for democracy, peace and prosperity." Opinions are bifurcated on what end result the talks can, and intend to, achieve. Will it end the longstanding quest of Sudanese people for democracy, peace and prosperity? Or will it provide military ruler General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan an elbow room to retain power in the name of democratic transition. While Burhan has welcomed the talk initiative as a "historic opportunity to complete the transitional phase", the main civilian faction — Forces for the Declaration of Freedom and Change (FDFC) – has boycotted talks citing that it would include parties that supported the coup. The contradiction in the stand of the two parties speaks volumes of the efficacy and direction of the talks. General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan took control of Sudan through a military takeover in October last year after toppling the transitional government under Abdalla Hamdok and replacing it with a Sovereign Council. Notably, the institution of transitional government under Hamdok had offered a glimmer of hope to Sudanese people as it came after a three-decade long despotic and inefficacious rule of Omar al Bashir. People's hard-earned freedom from Bashir's rule was short-lived as Burhan usurped power after a short span. The East African nation is a classic example of how, in absence of a robust Constitutional framework, popular uprisings fail to achieve the intended results and get diminished to being a subject of power and wealth appropriation. Under the present circumstances, the reservations raised by FDFC and other similar factions are not at all unfounded. Ever since Burhan acquired power last year, he has been brutally trampling over protestors who are unwilling to wither away. The recent death of a five-year old by coming under military vehicle took the total official tally to 101 protesters' deaths. In addition, hundreds of politicians and activists have been detained — all in pursuit of remaining in power. One may wonder what has changed now and why Burhan is so willing to participate in talks to facilitate democratic transition! Last month, he lifted the state of emergency which had been there since the 2021 coup. He also released 125 protesters and political prisoners. This sudden change of heart can be attributed to two factors. Firstly, the Burhan regime has been experiencing tremendous international pressure and an unfading domestic protest. Secondly, international funds have been frozen and national debt has reached an all-time high. The average inflation rate for the year 2021 was reported to stand at 359 per cent, and unemployment had also been exorbitantly high. So, essentially, international backlash coupled with massive economic slump, has left the Burhan regime with no other option than to negotiate. It is true that Sudanese people are the ultimate sufferers of economic slump but the pressure is mounting on the government. Amid the environment created for dialogue, it is the government that assumes the vulnerable spot and must concede, fully or partially, to the demands raised by the civilian factions. The moot question once again remains the same: can the UN-triggered dialogue, in which Burhan sees an opportunity to survive politically, provide the people what they want? The task of balancing a despot's hunger for power and people's quest for democracy appears onerous. In the present scheme of things, if a headroom is provided to Burhan, he may prolong people's wait for democracy. After all, a cat can never be trusted to guard the milk! Sudanese people have been fighting a very long battle to see the dawn of democracy. Being the most prominent stakeholders, they must maintain a maximalist stand in the negotiations. FDFC's absence from the dialogue reduces the weight of the negotiations, as it had been so instrumental in ousting Bashir in 2019, and spearheading protests thereafter. The role of the UN and other agencies must be limited as facilitators and Sudanese people must be allowed to take the driver's seat. They are in the position to bargain and they should be allowed to do so.