Sudan: A nation in agonizing search for itself
Reconciling self-determination with national unity
by Francis Mading Deng and Abdullahi A. An-Na’im
Since the right of self-determination led to the independence of Sudan on January 1, 1956, the country has been embroiled in successive wars that culminated in the independence of South Sudan on July 9, 2011. The situation in both countries, however, remains paradoxically turbulent with devastating civil wars that erupted in South Sudan in December 2013 and in Sudan in April 2023. In this op-ed, we build on an article we co-authored decades ago in which we proposed reconciling the right to self-determination with national unity. We believe this can be done by addressing the grievances behind the demand for self-determination within an appropriate framework for consensual national unity.
Relativity of Self-Determination and Unity
Self-determination is by definition what a people or country do to determine their destiny, not gratuitously given by others. But self-determination is not an end in itself; it is a means to an end. That end usually embodies the pursuit of fundamental rights and freedoms, the overriding goal being human dignity. Unity is also not an ideal beyond scrutiny, however desirable the principle might sound. It involves different degrees of relationships that might be compatible, cordial and harmonious, or incongruent, competitive, and conflictual. Reconciling self-determination with national unity would require creating a normative framework that protects the fundamental rights, freedoms, and dignity of all citizens without discrimination. Consensual unity then becomes a form of internal self-determination.
Historical Roots of the Crisis
Sudan has suffered from an acute crisis of identity that is historically rooted in the slave trade, which classified and stratified people on the grounds of race, ethnicity, religion, culture or gender. This crisis had two dimensions. One was that the process of Arabization and Islamization, to which the Northerners were exposed, led to a one-sided process of assimilation. Sudanese who were a racial and cultural hybrid of incoming Arab men and indigenous African women identified themselves, and were identified, as purely Arabs. This elevated them to a degree of respect and dignity that placed them above the Black Africans with traditional belief systems, mostly in the South, who were the primary target of slave raids. In reaction, people of the South developed an identity of resistance against Arabization and Islamization. The second aspect of the identity crisis was that this already distorted racial and cultural self-perception was imposed on the Sudan to label it Arab, reinforced by Islam, which overshadowed the immense racial, cultural, and religious diversities of the country. This naturally discriminated against those who were not Arabs or Muslims, especially in the Southern region of the country.
Phases of the Liberation Struggle
The struggle for independence from colonial domination subsumed and transcended internal divisions. Southerners cautiously supported independence and proposed federalism as a condition for their support, which Northern political leaders calculatedly and disingenuously promised would be given due consideration. However, the gross inequities of the Sudanization of the posts previously held by the colonial rulers, in which the South received only three junior administrative positions, and the planned transfer of Southern troops to the North signalled what the Southerners feared would be a return to the historical indignities of slavery.. That triggered the August 1955 rebellion, which would escalate into two long, intermittent North-South wars: the first from 1955 to 1972, and the second from 1983 to 2005. The promise to consider Southern Sudanese call for a confederal arrangement was to become one of what Abel Alier described in his book on the political history of Southern Sudan as ‘Too Many Agreements Dishonoured’.
While the first war led by the Southern Sudan Liberation Movement was secessionist, it was ended by a compromise that granted the South regional autonomy. The stated goal of the second war led by the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, SPLM, with its military wing, Sudan People’s Liberation Army, SPLA, was the creation of a New Sudan of inclusivity and equality without discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnicity, religion, culture, or gender, but ended on a compromise that granted the South the right of self-determination and led to the independence of South Sudan. However, the vision of a New United Sudan of inclusivity and full equality had already inspired the marginalized non-Arab regions of the North to join the liberation movement that was initiated by the South.
The Anomalies of Identifications
This changing vision of the struggle in the South reveals that the North-South dichotomy was an oversimplification and distortion of the Sudanese complex realities, which embodied immense diversities based on multiple factors and varying degrees. The wars that pitted the North against the South in a simplistic manner overshadowed these differences. There are non-Arab Africans in marginalized regions of the North bordering the South and in the Darfur region in Western Sudan. Even the Beja in the East and the Nubians in the far North, the most Arabized groups, have retained their indigenous identities with pride and dignity. And although Islam is considered a unifying factor in the North, there are different versions of Islam in different parts of the country and among the Muslims in general. And there were also Muslims in the South, mostly in urban centres, although their numbers were limited. Besides, as the conflicts in Darfur would demonstrate, even the shared Islamic faith did not entirely remove racial prejudices and discrimination. Nevertheless, the post-independence wars ironically unified the North against the Southern rebellion, and Southerners, despite their tribal differences, united in their struggle for liberation against Northern domination.
The ‘one country, two systems’ framework proposed by the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) to guide US mediation was intended to reconcile national unity with the Southern demand for self-determination. During the interim period before the self-determination vote, efforts were to be exerted to make unity attractive to the voters. Both the interim arrangement and the efforts to make unity attractive failed, and South Sudan ultimately opted for independence. Southern independence from Northern domination exposed their internal divisions and generated tension in both countries.
In South Sudan, tribal and regional differences, which had always threatened the unity of the liberation struggle, emerged with a vengeance. And in the North, the assumption that Islam, and to a lesser degree Arabism, unified the people of the North proved to be a fallacy as the racial, ethnic, tribal, and regional diversities overshadowed shared religious affiliations. So, even with the independence of South Sudan, the struggle for a New Sudan of inclusivity and equality continued in the marginalized areas of the North that had joined the South in the liberation struggle. The genie was out of the bottle. Separation, rather than a clear-cut resolution of the North-South conflict, left them still ‘Bound by Conflict’, the title of a book on the North-South conflict, as the two countries continued to support each other’s internal rebellions. The challenge, which both countries have been trying to address, is to become ‘bonded by cooperation’, end their internal wars, and forge closer bilateral relations.
The Challenges of Diversity Management
Although the magnitude of the identity crisis varies in both countries, the causes are rooted in the mismanagement of diversity by which some groups enjoy the full rights of citizenship while others are marginalized and denied the dignity of belonging. While the racial, religious, and cultural differences were more pronounced in the North-South conflict, in South Sudan, ethnic, tribal and regional differences proved almost equally divisive and conflictual. Guns in the major civil war have been silenced, but inter-communal hostilities rage on in numerous areas, and the overall situation remains precarious and explosive. It is now widely acknowledged that the two numerically largest Nilotic tribes, the Dinka and the Nuer, although the principal antagonists in the civil wars, are the competing hegemonic wielders of power in South Sudan. In particular, the Dinka, who hold the reins of political power, are now popularly viewed as the successors to Northern Sudanese domination in South Sudan.
The Imperative Path to Peace
Differences between the conflicting factions notwithstanding, the suffering of the people in both countries must be brought to an end urgently. The horrific mass atrocities being committed in the Sudan must stop; the agonizing humanitarian needs of the innocent civilian population need to be met as a matter of utmost urgency; and steps should be taken in earnest to negotiate a just, comprehensive, and lasting peace in the country.
In both countries, the framework for reconciling the demand for internal self-determination with the overriding goal of national unity might require expanding the formula of ‘one country, two systems’ proposed by CSIS for resolving the North-South conflict to ‘one country, multiple systems. This would allow coherent and cohesive groups and regions to autonomously govern themselves in accordance with their cultural values, norms, and operational patterns within a national framework that promotes inclusivity, equality, and dignity for all, without discrimination.
Negotiating an inclusive peace based on a shared vision for the future of the country must be first and foremost the responsibility of the Sudanese themselves. But the history of Sudan, including the evolution of their various identities, has always been linked to external actors and their influence. This external dimension has now been intensified, as foreign actors, motivated by identity connections, access to the vast natural resources of the country, or geopolitical considerations, have become more overtly involved in the civil war. But no one can, or should, be a beneficiary of the mass brutalities being inflicted on the people or the wholesale destruction of the infrastructure. Peace can only be in the interest of all concerned with the human and material welfare of the country.
Although negotiating peace remains the responsibility of the Sudanese, complementary third-party mediation of external partners would, of course, be welcomed and may in fact be crucially instrumental. Furthermore, the intercession of mediators in such stalemated conflicts, as appears to be the case in Sudan, is critical for face-saving and avoiding the perception of a winner-loser outcome that would remain a persistent threat to peace.
Achieving inclusive peace will require addressing the thorny issue of religion in public life. The role of religion in politics has been one of the most contentious issues in the Sudan. Since independence, leaders of all the political parties in varying ways and degrees have considered Islam inseparable from all aspects of life, private and public. And yet, there are significant differences in the nature of the role of religion in politics. This is one of the issues that requires constructive dialogue in search of common ground.
Whatever differences might be in the details, genuine unity, which is desired by all political factions, is only possible through a framework that ensures respect for diversity and equality of citizenship without discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnicity, tribe, region, culture, or religion. In this regard, it is worth recalling the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, who were also religious leaders, when they stipulated the adage ‘Religion to God and Nation to All’.
Restoring the Bonds of Cordial Ties
The relations between the now-divided Two Sudans have remained ambivalent, bound by internal conflicts that cross their borders, and yet remain bonded by their efforts to help each other resolve their conflicts. Experience shows that when the two countries reach peace agreements and domination by the antagonist is removed, they become more receptive to the positive aspects of their relationship. After the 1972 peace agreement, Southerners became genuinely committed to unity.
Since independence from the North, Arabic, once perceived as the language of oppression by the North, is now the popular means of communication in the South. Islam is openly practised, and the call to prayers is aired by loudspeakers from the Mosque to be heard by all, as in any Muslim country. Bilateral relations between the two countries have become very close. The framework of ‘one country, two systems’ that was to guide relations during the interim is now being reformulated into ‘one people in two countries’
This indicates that, despite their separation, the historic relations that were previously seen as inherently conflictual are now being viewed more positively by both sides as historical ties to be valued. These deeply rooted historical bonds can be strengthened or weakened, depending on the will of the people and their leaders. It is in the mutual interest of the Two Sudans to help each other consolidate their internal peace and unity and strengthen a close bilateral association that need not fit any of the conventional constitutional labels but are nonetheless historically well grounded. Self-determination need not be a path to partition but a positive impetus to turning being ‘Bound by Conflict’ to being ‘Bonded by Cooperation’.