Wrong debate on referendum law in Sudan
By Steve Paterno
October 13, 2009 — With only twelve months left for the people of South Sudan to carry out a referendum for self determination, the stakes are high and the fear is more apparent. The referendum legislation, which is supposed to be passed into a Law, is stalled in the national parliament by the National Congress Party (NCP). The NCP, through its speaker in parliament, Ahmed Ibrahim Al-Tahir, vows to frustrate any effort for South Sudan rights to self determination that will eventually lead to secession. To thrive on its undertaking, the NCP has so far managed to stall the referendum legislation by tabling out wrong debate on the proposed referendum bill.
The NCP insists that there ought to be a participation of 75% to 90% of all the registered South Sudanese voters to legitimize the referendum exercise. Such argument has nothing to do with South Sudan referendum, but is an effort to thwart South Sudanese rights for self determination. The committee of Sudan People Liberation Movement (SPLM), headed by Riek Machar who is negotiating with NCP on the proposed referendum legislation, has sadly bought into this NCP ploy—by insisting that instead, a simple majority of 51% of eligible South Sudanese must validate the referendum vote. This shows once again the SPLM incompetence in trying to negotiate with NCP on such an obvious matter. The last time the SPLM negotiated on other milestone legislations—for instance, the media laws and on the issue of Abyei—it fell out and got the short ends of the deals. Now the SPLM is bound to repeat similar mistakes in the ongoing referendum negotiations.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon SPLM to redirect the debate on referendum legislation and channel it on the right course to ultimately ensure a free and fair referendum for South Sudanese. First, the SPLM should reject outright the insistence that the referendum votes must be based on certain percentage of the population or the quorum. In democratic elections, the NCP’s bizarre fixed percentages and quorum of registered voters to determine outcome is not in the equation. Results are decided by simple majority of the casted ballots of the population that participated. This is simple: if only three people turn out to vote during the referendum, the result of the referendum must be validated as such. The SPLM knows it too well that it contested the official result of South Sudan population census, therefore, why should it again insists to negotiate on a quorum for referendum vote if the population of South Sudanese is not yet known. Besides, it is obvious that the turnout in any elections in South Sudan is going to be very low due to the problems that the region is facing; poor-and-no-roads, insecurity, no voter-education, logistics problems, and so on. The NCP knows the factors which may hinder large turnouts during the referendum, as such, it introduces and insists on certain percentage and quorum to be met to make secession through referendum impossible to achieve.
The focus on the debate should be to craft the referendum law to define the South Sudanese through their heritage and territorial integrity. In that; the territorial boundaries of South Sudan must clearly be demarcated, and the people within those territories must be identified through their original traditional settings. Otherwise, it is silly to insist on certain percentage of the population that no one is sure about its actual number and territorial constituencies. More importantly, the referendum law must set the actual voting date for the exercise to be carried out.
The South Sudan parliament in Juba must also exercise its legislative duties and table laws on unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) for South Sudan. Such an option is always available as a second resort, especially when Khartoum is zealous to ruin the rights for self determination for the people of South Sudan. Furthermore, the South Sudan Armed Forces must be on all-set mode, principally to back the people of South Sudan who are not willing to see the referendum dateline pass. Therefore, let the debate be refocused and all the options for South Sudan secession be put on the table.
Steve Paterno is the author of The Rev. Fr. Saturnino Lohure, A Roman Catholic Priest Turned Rebel. He can be reached at [email protected]
Monyde Bai
Wrong debate on referendum law in Sudan
Enough is enough, the NCP as the senior partner in Government of National unity was suppose to champion the unity of the country by making unity attractive via removing all the obstacles, unjust laws and all sorts of discriminations. Secondly passed laws that facilitates free and fair elections and lastly passed referendum laws.
Nonetheless, the NCP is inciting and insulting the people of South Sudan to declare their independent unileterally.
The NIF/NCP is putting all possible obstacles in the way of South Sudanese freedom and is frustrating the SPLM at all veneus to elections and referendum with out knowing that its NCP will be held accountable for the cosequences and fall out that will be brougth about by southern unilateral declaration of independent.
I’m afraid that Sudan is on its dirrect way to somalization due to unpatriotic acts of the NCP idiocy of forcing the SPLM to the brinks and denying all avenues except unilateral declaration of independent which is the only choice available to southern citizens and their leaders. The NCP should not underestimate the SPLM that SPLM has SPLA and it is an armed party not like DUP, UMMA, POP and the rests of whinners in the north who just complains, whines, screams and ridiculously cries.
Should it happens that the South is forced to make a unilateral declaration of independent as it is eminent and inevitable at the movement, the fall out is unpredictable and may not be far from total collapse of the Sudan. The only functioning government will be the ones in the Southern capital Juba. Should the Sudan government opt to pursue the South militarily an option of which SAF can not prevail and the Sudan army is defeated, Darfur, Nuba Mountains and Sotuhern blue Nile each will makes its own unilateral declaration of independent and the Far North will be claims by the Nubians who are the original owners of the northern part to the detriment of the Arabs.
It is in the best interests of the north to arrange free and fair elections, free and fair referendum and lets the South go peacefully so that good neighborness will be maintained and the North remains a single entity for a while. I do not gurantee that the North will be a single entity for more then 50 more years given the manners the Arabs northerners have been handling themselves at the contemtous down lookig at other ethnic groups and other non arabs muslims. Darfur, Nuba Mountains, Southern blue Nile and Far North of Dongla are going to go. Only the center will remains with the arabs to their detriment.
Lets the NCP frustrate the SPLM over referendum and the southerners are going to exercise their rights through their representatives in Juba and lets face the consequences of collapsing and disintegration of the Sudan once and for all so that Sudan takes its rightful historical position among its peers such as Yugoslavia, Somalia and all kingdoms.
Gatwech
Wrong debate on referendum law in Sudan
Steve Paterno,
You made me laugh reading your article. Do you know why? Because I thought you were highly educated, or a learned person. You made me to remember an email message sent to me by my American friend who asked me how long does it take for a South Sudanese to understand the type of an issue being discussed? He was referring to misunderstood and misleading writing by people like you. I was trying to educate people on what is being discussed, but to no avail.
Steve, the SPLM has NEVER proposed 51% for quorum participation as you alleged. They proposed 50% not 51%. The 51% the SPLM proposed was for required percentage of registered voters to to declare the South independent. You were only correct on the NCP’s quorum proposal which was initially 75% but shifted up to 90%. Also, the NCP sticks to its position of 75% votes in favor of secession against the SPLM’s 51%. So you better know the difference. It is like this: 50% vs 90% (required for quorum) and 51% vs 75% (required for secession). But you have mixed 51% with 75% to 90%, which totally a misunderstanding and misleading of readers.
Again, your argument that there is no need for quorum in the referendum is unsubstantiated. International experience demands a quorum. Three South Sudanese can NEVER be allowed to decide on behalf of 8.2 million. Such a referendum can NEVER be recognized internationally. The SPLM team is very competent in knowing all these. Unless you, Mr. Steve Paterno is incompetent, don’t think that there is no need for a quorum. If you live in USA, try to consult experts on referenum in the US administration. They will tell you that there is need for a considerable forum, at least a simple majority quorum. Even in Parliament or cabinet sessions or meetings there are quorums. Referendum is not like elections. I advise you to do some more research, my friend. You are very, very wrong!
Kur
Wrong debate on referendum law in Sudan
I am sick of all this nonsense of so-called referendum bill. If the NIF regime in Khartoum were not stupid to insist on rubbish ideas, the CPA would have been implemented completely. But the regime thinks that it can still play around using dirty games to cheat the process. I now want them to anwser this question: will they require 90% turnout of the eligible voters in the election to make whoever is elected in the coming election a legitimate leader of the country? If they ever say no, then I agree with the opinion that our parliament in Juba should pass a law that calls for the legitimate referendum in South Sudan to take place by Jan. 2011. We are not going to beg anybody for this. It is our right and we will take it.
Kur