Unity: A controversial term in the Sudanese politics
By Bor Gatwech *
June 20, 2006 — If you happened to be a southerner and want to make
more enemies, preach a sermon on Sudan’s unity to
southerners anywhere in the world. But if you want to
get a wrong and inconsistent meaning of the term
“unity of the Sudan”, consult a northern Sudanese
lecturer in Khartoum University and you will end-up
stunt.
The word “unity” is becoming inconsistently
conspicuous and more controversial as the country is
heading towards the referendum where the south will
decide either to remain as part of the Sudan or may
become an independent state. However, nobody is
willing to neither preach it; nor make it attractive;
or denounces it.
The mood of the southerners is: the poll will
determine every thing; while the north believes that
there must be a political miracle before the south is
to vote and people will have to go back to Naivasha
which I don’t think the Kenyan will accept for sake of
their town’s reputation.
Conversely, though, southerners perceive unity as
impossible and a wrong prescription to Sudan’s
stagnant political problem while to northerners, it
means one land, one belief and one people. To them
(northerners), “they either want Sudan unity as
defined above, or if any one cannot squeeze
him/herself into this definition, than let them leave
the land.”
Though southerners understand unity in conventional,
linguistic and contemporary political definition, they
see it as a set back and a political burden to their
cause.
Thus, somebody preaching it in the south could be
counted as sell-out, betrayal and opportunist like how
northerners consider somebody who professes the next
president of the Sudan to be Christian and African, a
political opportunist.
Nonetheless, is unity possible in the country Sudan
having been hated in the south because it is misused
and mis-defined by the north? Is unity worth it or a
baseless argument? And why did the great physician to
Sudan’s “Acute Immuno Political Syndrome” (AIPS)
prescribed unity as the new and ultimate cure to its
chronic sickness.
Firstly, it is worth mentioning that Sudan is the
largest country in Africa inhabited by two races:
African and Arabs for centuries. It is multi-cultural;
multi-religious dominated by the world’s greatest
religions namely Christianity and Islam in additions
to traditional African beliefs. It is ethnically
colored from Bantus to Nilotic and to Cushitic. So
Sudan’s unity across diversity could be something
colorful if well utilized and promoted since
independent.
Besides, it is conspicuously convincing that the
countries most politically powerful; economically and
culturally rich; and united while at peace with itself
are those which are diverse socially and religiously
and have redefined unity in diversity in it correct
terms. The United States and South Africa are good
examples of this phenomenon for they have different
races and religious groups living together.
Nonetheless, it could also be argued that the most
unstable, less politically powerful and nearly extinct
as states are those enshrined in north Sudanese
definition of unity as one land, one clan and one
belief. The good example for this is Somalia.
As a result, there is clear evident that unity in
diverse community is partly a source of success for
states or nations in the world. But why is Sudan
different from this reality? Yes one can argue that
Sudan is rich economically and politically powerful.
But is it the whole country with that economic wealth
and full political participation across the diverse
communities.
Since born in exile, I first went to Khartoum in 1998
after finishing my high school in Ethiopia to go and
see my country. Of course I was trekking on foot for
15 days from Ethiopian Border up to Malakal because
there was neither road nor vehicle in the south from
Ethiopian border up to Renk, a town around 1/1/56
border between the south and the north. Through all
that vast region of Upper Nile was just jungle which
is similar to other parts of the south; and when I
reached Renk, things changed and started to ask a
friend of mine if we are still in the Sudan or might
have got lost on our way and in a different country.
The answer was, “we are about to arrive in the real
Sudan: north Sudan.”
Paradoxically, all the Sudanese including the author
of this article believe that unity is impossible. This
is only due to two reasons!
First, the north does not want to refer to any other
dictionary and get the correct definition of this
controversial term in the Sudan. Secondly, it is too
late and nobody from the south is willing to still
live in a united Sudan anymore even if given the
presidency of the Sudan as professed by Dr. Al Turabi
a couple of weeks ago.
So, why then waste time until 2011 if everybody
believe that it is impossible for the north to allow
unity in diversity and abandon the notion of one land,
one people, one Allah , while the south is out of
interest on unity? Again only two reasons!
Firstly, the south welcomes a peaceful means of
resolving the conflict while on the other hand; the
north is buying time and waiting for political changes
or miracles across the nations who imposed CPA, while
re-strategizing itself on how to discard the document
to garbage and ask for another Naivasha which enforces
another constitution based on one land, one people,
and one God.
In conclusion, Sudan’s unity is impossible of the
impossibilities because there is no middle ground
cultivated by the two regions of the Sudan where there
could be compromises on their perception and beliefs
in unity.
As a matter of fact, Unity will not be attractive
because an Arab state built a five star in Juba, nor
that President Kiir is given a state welcome in
Jordan.Unity could be possible only if a new spirit
arise from the north not only from individuals like
Dr. Al Turabi, but from general public that denounce
and abandon the notion of uniting Sudan under one
land, one people and one God.
*Bor Gatwech is SPLM youth political activist based in
Australia. He can be reached at emails:
[email protected]