After Sudan’s elections, what’s next?
By Santino Fardol
May 1, 2010 — Miles away from the elections, I was recently in the centre of the media during the April 2010 elections. Invited twice to the France 24 TV one of the most watched TV Channels in the Arab World and France, I strongly felt that it was my duty to defend my party’s vision, image and values. One of the themes I was invited to talk about was why southerners want to have self-determination? And what is the position of the SPLM party on the issue of unity? The second invitation was to comment on the overall election results ‘preliminary results’. Nevertheless, though I master the topic why southerners want to have self-determination, I reequipped myself, read additional references such as “Too Many Agreements Dishonoured” of Molana Abel Alier, “The Call for Democracy in Sudan” of the Late. Dr. John Garang de Mabior and many others.
However, the day before the first scheduled interview, political equations changed in Sudan and I found myself confronted with accusation questions fixed against the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) such as did SPLM make a deal with the National Congress Party (NCP) to withdraw Yasir Arman from the race in exchange of allowing free and fair referendum? Or did the SPLM foresee losing elections and that was why it walked out?
In actual fact, Yasir’s withdrawal took many Sudanese by surprise. Sudanese, north, south, east and west were extremely disappointed to see the candidate of their choice leaving the competition. Mr. Yasir as described by many was the symbol of unity and change in a country deeply divided. Well back to the topic, hours before the first interview, not knowing the driving forces behind the SPLM’s decision, I decided to call my colleagues at the SPLM National Secretariat for External Relations to find out the compelling evidence behind the withdrawal but my efforts produced no fruits and finally I ended up calling one of my friends who was on the Election Campaign Team of President Salva Kiir. Alas, the election team was in the Lakes State so; we could barely communicate due to the poor network and all I summed up from him was “Sanino, Yasir’s withdrawal is good for our party” said; he. For more on both interviews, please, visit our website splmfrance.
What motivates me to writing this article is the false accusation directed against the SPLM which suggests it was indifferent whether the elections were going to be fair and free and that it was only interested in holding referendum? In addition, I learned during the shows that some northern elites are blaming the NCP for dividing Sudan saying that it failed to attract southerners to vote for unity. Before I can comment on these and many others, I would like to recall into attention the importance of elections and why the April 2010 elections were necessary?
ELECTIONS:
In many countries where democracy is the guideline, citizens elect their politicians and political parties expecting them to act with honesty in the interest of all citizens. By electing them, the citizens give them a golden key and the power to access public resources and make decisions that would not only have greater impact in their lives but also on the country as a whole.
Given this immense privileged position, significant damage can be inflicted by some politicians or political parties acting out of greed or in the service of those who have elected them. In contrast, Sudanese citizens are gifted with bad luck not to enjoy the freedom and privilege of electing who they wish to be their president, prime minister, ministers and political party (ies) that work indelibly in their interests. In other words, servants with ability, skills and readiness to serve their people as well as and the country.
However, under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) which ended one of the African’s longest civil wars stipulated that an election had to be held before the people of Southern Sudan can vote in a referendum scheduled for 2011 either to remain as part of one Sudan or vote for independence of their own country. Furthermore, it was clearly stated that the election was a process by which Sudan had to be transformed into democracy process, legitimise the Government of National Unity (GoNU) and the SPLM led government in the South (GoSS). Nevertheless, the election supposed to have taken place in July 2009 but was pushed for April 2010 to resolve issues related to it conduct such as census, elections laws, security and implementation of the remaining of the CPA.
Though it was a must, the embarrassing and catastrophic April 2010 Election has left the Sudanese society “citizens and political parties” deeply divided and left them with no more than two choices either to join the international community in condemning the results while accepting President Omar el-Bashir for the new term or work to destabilise the new government with possible scenario to overthrow it. Caution, either of the two is an alternative to a country which has been in chaotic situation since 1956.
Despite the reality of what had taken place before the elections, during the five days and after, serious questions remain unresolved. Was unity made attractive so as to allow southerners to vote for it? And will referendum take place on time and in a free and fair environment? Or will northern elites play their folly games to topple President Bashir in an attempt to write off the referendum and the CPA as they have done in the past decades?
To evaluate the recent election situation, one must revisit the past elections held in the country. Like the recent one, Sudan’s elections have never been fair or free. They have always been based on a fraudulent and manipulation of results and statistics. Sudan started its first multi-party election in 1953 which it held under difficult circumstances, with much suspicion and tension and limited time and resources yet, it was characterised as peaceful and with a lot of participation by voters. However, the question which many observers ask today is why has Sudan not so far produced the kind of stable and dynamic government since it held its first election? Like the first multi-party elections in 1953, the second in 1964-1969 and the third in 1985-1989, parties’ leaders imposed candidates of their interest, rig the results and more dramatically force or buy voters.
The Carte centre and the EU described the April 2010 elections as “below the international standards”; others described it as half horrid, half hopeful (BBC and the Economist). It is worth mentioning that right from the start a lot of mistakes were made and gross violation were committed too. Less in the South in terms of rigging the result but appalling in the north where Bashir’s regime not only manipulated the election but intimidated citizens in order to avert the ICC arrest warrant issued against him in July 2008.
With President Bashir’s declaring (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8643602.stm) that the referendum will take place on time, Southern Sudan to break away seems eminent and alarming northern elites and parties leaders who project their accusations against the NCP for failing to making unity attractive during the five years that preceded the CPA. With all statistics indicating that southerners will opt to break away, northern elites are in a state of disarray and there is a tendency that the latter will try their utmost to derail the upcoming referendum in one of the following ways.
1. As his predecessors, President Bashir has never kept his promises particularly on the peace agreements signed between him, south and Darfur.
2. Will try to replicate the scenario of the 1989 “northern Sudanese arrangement of power transfer ” the deal made between the Umma Party and the National Islamic Front of Dr. Alturabi when Mr. El Sahadiq al Mahdi preferred the Islamists over the peace deal which Mr. Al Mirghani was about to achieve with the Late Dr. John Garang.
Al Mirghani concluded a dialogue with the Southern rebels of the SPLM/A and signed the Sudanese Peace Initiative that was to freeze the “September Laws”, known as Sharia Law introduced by Nimeri in 1983.
The burning question which can be asked here at this junction, is Sudan ready for another civil war? Well, there are mix feelings. On the one hand, there is a belief that returning to another war is avertable. This belief is justified by the fact that things are already messy for President Bashir who will not try to worsen them (his arrest warrant, the taste of oil dividends, war in Darfur and his greedy to stay in power) and that this time the north believes the war will be plug-ugly. On the other hand, war might be inevitable if the remaining key issues remain unresolved for example, the north-south border demarcation. Similarly, President Salva Kiir Mayardit has repeatedly said, he will not take south to war again.
ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE SPLM
The accusations directed against the SPLM that the party was only interested about holding referendum and that secret deal was reached between the party and its peace partner the NCP to withdraw Yasir in exchange to the self-determination are baseless and absurd. The enemies of peace seemed to have forgotten the fact that the SPLM is the only revolutionary movement in the history of Sudan that has not changed its colours even when in power. Since its inception in 1983, SPLM adopted only one vision, its call for “the New Sudan” and followed it up to our presence days. SPLM has fought for it and will continue to fight for it to maintain Sudan’s unity, bring peace in Darfur and transform Sudan from totalitarian state to a state where citizens are treated equally. In addition, the SPLM doesn’t make deals behind closed doors nor does it betray its principles. Furthermore, it has never made secret deals and can’t see why it makes them now.
Those who accused it do it only to tarnish its reputation. The question whether the party foreseen its defeat was also a fabricated and false accusation. The magnitude (93%) by which the SPLM won the elections in the South provides evidences. In the first place, the party was confident that its candidate was going to win. Even out of the race, cde. Yasir did well in the elections rated second with 21, 69%. Once again, the enemies of peace were proven wrong.
NORTHERN ELITES BLAMING THE NCP FOR DIVIDING SUDAN
I am not here to speak on behalf of the NCP but to tell the truth, all main northern parties with the exception of the Communist Party are the greater contributors to the most of the problems Sudan has today. They are responsible for the killing of thousands of innocents in South and other marginalised-areas. Moreover, they are accountable for inequality distribution of Sudan’s resources, lack of development, inadequate services, and disparity in education in South Sudan, Darfur, the Nuba Mountains and the Blue Nile. As Molana Abel stated, they have dishonoured many of the peace agreements and accords signed in the country. Yes, it worth mentioning that like most of northern Sudanese parties, the NCP is also part of the ongoing problem.
WAS UNITY MADE ATTRACTIVE FOR SOUTHERNERS?
This question is crucial and needs careful treatment. Stipulated in the 2005’s peace accord, the central government supposed to work with a will to first implements the CPA, develops the marginalised-areas mainly the south, be transparent in distribution of oil’s revenues, equal treatment of citizens, equal employment opportunity, education etc…
Sadly instead of working to realising the above-mentioned conditions, Bashir and his party resorted to some tactics delaying the implementation of some CPA’s key issues such as north-south demarcation and others.
Evaluating the overall period of the CPA, nothing concrete can suggest that the central government has done its best to attract southerners to vote for unity. To put in a nutshell, nothing has changed much in the way south has been treated since 1956. Six years were enough not only to attract southerners but also to write off the pitch dark page of the country’s history. As mentioned in one of the TV interviews, if tomorrow, southerners choose to go; they will do so because they have ran out of patient and therefore shouldn’t be held accountable for doing so. Fifty three years have passed since they asked for self-determination (since Juba Conference, 1947).
With both alternative scenarios on the table (peace or return to war), it is in the interest of the NCP and the SPLM to continue dialogues to find solutions and resolve the remaining key issues. In addition, it is in the interest of international community to continue pressing Bashir to live up with his promises, make peace in Darfur and allow peaceful referendum to take place on time.
Furthermore, as the elections are now over, the immediate task for the SPLM is to work out the independent candidates’ issue, reunite southerners and put in action promises made during the elections. President Kiir Mayardit already promised to work for all southerners saying, “I will be the president of all the Southern Sudanese during my term”. Kiir gave his word to form a government where all are represented. In my view, this government should include other parties because SPLM is a democratic party. Additionally, the task ahead of us is huge and needs all efforts. We are strong when we work together and weaken when working individually. Finally, the NCP should realise that failing to carry out their duty will cost them not only the South but also their chance to govern in the north and Bashir’s future with the ICC.
The author, who heads the SPLM-France office, is a former diplomat (Minister Plenipotentiary), holder of MSc in International Management and author of Southern Sudan and its Fight for Freedom. He is currently writing a book called “Nation in Pearl”. He is reachable at: [email protected]