Sudan: The need for honest politics
By Nyuol Justin Yaac*
July 12, 2006 — Since its inception, the Sudan has been characterized by perpetual warfare, if not intermittent interregnums. And even today, if Sudan appears on international news, it’s usually on accounts of its 22 year-old war, or the Darfur crisis-of course-both which are untenable.
While Sudan’s current disposition is one of violence, war in itself is not alien to Sudan’s political fiber: and if there is anything foreign to Sudan, it’s the ménage à trois form of government that serves as the foundation of its contemporary political landscape. The formation of this tripartite administration (the NCP, the SPLM and the SLA) is to try and salvage Sudan’s past problems. But, while this sort of governance might be the epitome of Sudan’s politics, most people are, or, would be incredulous that Sudan’s political contradictions are far from extinction.
Most nations seek government reforms as a panacea for their political flaws, and the Sudan is no exception to this phenomenon, it has fluctuated between military regimes, dictatorial leadership as well as democratic governments; however, unlike the successful nations, Sudan’s past governmental reforms have egregiously failed the state because of two main reasons. First, in spite of major reformations, the “Arab” factor has significantly weighed in Sudan’s politics, hence defying and flouting Sudan’s reality as well as its social milieu; and, secondly, the antecedent successive regimes have always been guided by the xenophobic denominator inherent within their political ideology, which has in turn defeated the whole notion of syncretism.
As such, the country is tacitly stratified along the North-South binary opposition, a bearing which is in effect consequential because it creates a hierarchy in which the north is privileged over the south. More to the point is how perilous this view is, especially to a nation threatened by secession. And only should one envisage the Sudan within this paradigm, then only will one understand that this deliberate approach has been the bases of the protracted conflict that has blighted the nation for a long time- because- instead of viewing other parts of the nation as distinct entities, they are defined in relation to the north; and therefore, anything that is not north then becomes what is south.
Currently Sudan is at peace, now whether the peace will hold or is a comprehensive one (as the name suggests) or, not, is dubitable. However, what is conclusive is the fact that the country is still deeply divided among proponents of unity and exponents of secession; with each side believing there political inclination is the remedy for Sudan’s problems. While this may be the case, it’s yet to be proven; therefore, at this point in time, these proclivities ought to be construed as conjectures bound for appraisals at a later time.
The fate of Sudan after the plebiscite is irrelevant to its modus vivendi, because either as a “united” or a “separate” state, we will have to live in peace either as a single nation, or as neighbors: and for this matter all citizens will have to smother their prejudices for the sake of everlasting peace; however, this sort of consensus can only be built, if the government(s) works in tandem with the locals by initiating policies, and if possible, reconciliation programs at both the regional and national levels.
The CPA which is the bonding agent for Sudan’s social composition prioritizes unity above all; this is conspicuous in the minutiae “peace must be made attractive to all citizens.” Whilst this may be soothing it will not come for gratis, nor will it be easy to achieve, it will have to be pursued aggressively and candidly. And if the government really means business, and intends on walking the walk, rather than talking the walk, it has to get some things in order.
First, the NCP, which forms a majority of the government, will have to put all citizens on an equal pedestal, since equality is integral to unity. Also equally important, the government will have to focus on globalizing its population. In any war, a way of bolstering solidarity amongst your cadres is besmirching your rivalry as evil. In the case of Sudan, a country that has been at war with itself for 22 years, the damage couldn’t be any greater. This perennial process of mud slinging has created a culture of hate among the erstwhile foes, and even at the moment, this aura of loathe shows no sign of waning.
Nonetheless, with a new national agenda for “unity”, the challenge is reciprocating these transgressions. Starting with schools; if their prime role is to produce better citizens, then the school curriculum in the Sudan is in dire need of immense overhauling consistent with comportments and perceptions linear to co-existence. Also addendum to this, the government has to engage in a mass scale public inculcation of undoing the hierarchization of its people along categories of first class, and second class citizens on the basis of religion or race. Though these bleak pretexts are justified by pseudo political doctrines engineered by the religious elites, its time for the politician to recuperate their duties and restore hope because the reality is simple and clearer than ever before, failing to address these issues will open the Pandora’s Box to retrogression.
Secondly, due to the country’s skewed policy, the Sudanese society is sternly disintegrated into a collection of hamlets along ethnic and religious lines owing to a weak social cohesion based on organic solidarity. However, with a conflated new government and a different attempt of homogenizing the Sudanese state, the government has to discern its old methods of “divide and rule” as anachronistic to modern day Sudan, and start incorporating elements of mechanical solidarity into its novel political discourse.
Thirdly, in the south, the term “New Sudan” is not only ubiquitous, but also value laden, and constitutes a huge part of their political lederach. But while this political jargon is revered by most southerners, there is still a discrepancy in its usage by the politicians; and its absorption by the general public. When our leaders (including the late hero, Dr. John Garang de Mabior) talked of new Sudan, his vision was, a Sudan that lives under a new political dispensation but within the framework of a united Sudan; but to the general public, the term new Sudan means, a Sudan that is separate and independent from the old Sudan, and even today, to most southerners, the term new Sudan is synonymous to South Sudan. But, since the SPLM is the pioneering vanguard to a utopianistic south, it has to vindicate itself from this perplexity by redirecting southerners via earnest politics, and, it can only do so by reconciling this ideological delusion.
Fourth, the pogroms that the south has endured as a result of man induced calamities have always been expressed in terms of human rights violations, however, with a new government, in which the south owns twenty-seven percent, it is expected that all this will change or come to an end, but contrary to this expectations, its still a reality that southerners face further marginalization. But in their quest to alleviate the power imbalances that exist and expedite their optimisms, the southerners have to start expressing their disdains in terms of civil rights infractions. This will not only accelerate the realization of their hopes, but also will it put a tremendous amount of pressure on the government to listen to its subjects, and maybe this time around, they will listen-hopefully for the first time.
Also equally important, the government must have the political desire to initiate the expected changes if it hopes to abet its citizens realize their dreams. But more so, the government needs a formula that can be demonstrated by not only looking at “what works!” but also “what lasts!”
Last and most importantly, the Southerners are yet to see tangible peace dividends. The government must develop the south by revolving all their plans along stated timeframes and ensuring that those promises are executed as stated. By now it’s clear that there is no strategy to unity other than persuading the southerners by development. But, should the government hope to coerce voters through mundane political platitudes, then the chances of getting disgruntled southerners to queue up behind “unity” ballot boxes in 2011 are skimpy.
In theory, the CPA is perfect and endows the south with almost all its exigencies; but the CPA is also broad and detailed, in addition to this, a lot of its clauses are overlapping, at times conflicting. But while this is apparent, it is not to say it’s unfeasible, it just means it will take a cohort of pedantic wonks to work it.
So, until the CPA, which is the only adhesive to the north/south rapprochements is implemented in good faith: then what a lot of people call the “Sudanese Dream” is chimerical.
* The author is a sudanese residing in Canada, he can be reached at [email protected]