The dilemma of Sudna ruling party!
By Ahmed Elzobier
October 21, 2007 — On the 11th of October 2007 the SPLM decided to suspend its participation in what we know as the National Unity Government, initiated by the CPA. The reasons being cited in the SPLM communiqué for this suspension were: The redeployment of Sudanese armed forces from Unity State and Upper Nile State in southern Sudan; oil management and marketing; the final border demarcation; implementation of the Abyie protocol; democratic transformation; and the appointment of SPLM ministers. The SPLM move comes at a very critical time when the international community is preparing for another round of talks – optimistically called “final” by the UN Secretary General – between Darfur’s rebel factions and the government on the 27th of October. Amid mounting concern over the stability of Sudan, and a deepening humanitarian crisis in the Darfur, the move also comes during an upsurge in violence in Darfur where the SLAM/Minnawi group, who signed the DPA, has threatened to take up arms again.
The Government of Sudan, since 2005, has signed three more “peace agreements”: The Cairo Agreement with the National Democratic Alliances (NDA), predominantly northern Sudanese opposition forces; The Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) in Abuja in May 2006; and in October last year they signed an agreement with the Eastern Sudan rebel movement. None of these agreements has been implemented or fully honored.
The National Congress Party (NCP) insists that all these agreements are being implemented and blames the SPLM and other partners, including the international community, for the delays.
The NCP came to power through a military coup in 1989, that year marked the first time in the history of the region (the Arab, and Islamic world) that a Muslim Brother movement was successful – although through trickery and deception – in reaching power. They struggled hard to establish what they called a “civilising project”. Where the original plan was to establish a military dictatorship, then a fully-fledged totalitarian regime, to control and spread Islam by force in all of Sudan and across Africa. Sudan and Sudanese people were the guinea-pigs of this experiment, although its master, Hassan Al Turabi, now disassociates himself from it and in an interview with the Sudan Tribune last month he admitted it was a “failure”.
Now, what we have got there is a collection of extremely deluded individuals, still maintaining their inner Islamic Party structure but with no vision or visionary to lead them. Their insular attitude towards of the suffering of the Sudanese people has made them one of the most hated rulers in post-independent Sudan. They are surrounded by despicable layers of chancers, opportunists, and committed money-grabbers for whom corruption is a way of life.
Ironically, the CPA that the NCP struggle hard not to implement, at least gave their totalitarian regime a humane mask, coupled with unexpected partial legitimacy. But the CPA also comes with a price-tag; the ultimate price is the deconstruction of the regime itself. According to the International Crisis Group, “There was a systematic effort by the National Congress Party to undermine core elements of the agreement”. The NCP is faced with a real dilemma where they have been compelled to participate in a political process that will ultimately lead to their destruction, either through elections or through a violent takeover of power in Sudan. The late John Garang used to say, “We should make it known to them that the stake of not implementing the agreement is very high”. The regime is regionally isolated in Africa because of Darfur and their 1990s track record. In the Arab world not many states really care about the NCP apart from Egypt (for obvious reasons) and internationally they are reviled, especially after the Darfur crimes. Leading figures of the NCP face possible prosecution in the ICC for the alleged crimes against humanity they committed in Darfur. The only safe place for them, at least at the moment, is to be in power and the only reason they are still in power is because of the CPA which, unwisely, they try to undermine. Although some of the NCP’s leading figures, intoxicated with power, have developed a schizophrenic state of mind where they can be two things at the one time (like the medieval French noble who claimed that while he was a bishop he could observe strict celibacy, but as a baron he was married). They still repeatedly talk about Al Ingaz government, but they know that regime had officially and legally ended in 2005 and the only place where Al Ingaz could possibly still exist is in their own imaginations. This timely SPLM wake-up call should remind them of this new reality and the irreversible paradigm shift that has happened in Sudan politics.
The reaction of the northern Sudanese political parties is somewhat weak and pathetic, as usual, very late and missing the point. On the 15th of October more than 30 political parties and civil organizations signed a communiqué requesting the two parties not to return to war. They called for a national gathering to save the country and its unity, and asked the two parties to implement the CPA, especially the democratic transformation. Many in Sudan and outside consider the SPLM move a legitimate action, using peaceful pressure to fulfill the CPA provisions.
The author is a Sudan Tribune journalist. he can be reached at [email protected]