Will secularism the way forward for the future politics in Sudan

By Mahmoud A. Suleiman

February 10, 2008 — “Secularism” is a term coined by the British writer George Jacob Holyoake (1817-1906), in 1846 to describe his views of promoting a social order separate from religion, without actively dismissing or criticizing religious belief. In political terms, secularism is a movement towards the separation of religion and government (often termed the separation of church and state). This can refer to reducing ties between a government and a state religion, replacing laws based on scripture (such as the Ten Commandments in Christianity and Sharia law in Islam) with civil laws, and eliminating discrimination on the basis of religion. This is said to add to democracy by protecting the rights of religious minorities.

Austin Cline considers Secularism as often derided by those who don’t understand or believe in it. He adds that secularism is a critical component of liberal democracy. Secularism is the political principle or philosophy that there must exist some sphere of knowledge, values, institutions, and action that is independent of religious authority. If there is no such secular sphere, then everything is under ecclesiastical control and this undermines the possibility for liberty and autonomy.

The people of Sudan have been continuously struggling for the last 18 years since the National Islamic Front (NIF) assumed power by Coup d’etat to overcome the ever-increasing economic, social and political crisis created by its misrule. The current Government of Sudan (GOS) has destroyed immensely any prospects for democratic transformation. NIF has led the country into an ineffective, rogue and a failed state. The main pillars, on which state rests, have been deliberately weakened. Rule of law has perished from this country. There is no security of life of the citizens. Human rights violation spanning from discrimination to genocide is rife. Murder, tyranny & persecution have taken a dreadful turn and transformed the country into a dead valley. Observers argue that a Secular, democratic, just political system and a one-state solution might provide a way forward for all the political groups a respite to agree on the political future of ‘united’ Sudan. Moreover, it is also thought that Secular political system would free the country from the dysfunctional religious dominated regimes and secure much breathing room for democracy and civil liberties. NCP regime’s disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts imposed on the people of Darfur which have outraged the conscience of mankind around the globe.

Some observers assert that under current conditions, a fully Secular Political System would have to be imposed by force in Sudan. They add that the majority of the Sudanese would, if given a choice in a referendum, opt for a political system that in some way identified with Islam. However, a fully Islamic Political System could only be established by force in the Southern Sudan, unless the Southern Sudanese could be assured that such a system could guarantee “common minimum agenda of pluralistic, democratic, secular and united Sudan—a new political dispensation that can take care of historical, ethnic, cultural, religious and contemporary diversities”, as argued by Charles K Deng: [email protected].

The oppressed and disfranchised Sudanese consider Secular political system is paramount and is only achievable if the marginalised majority campaign together against the old guards by changing their allegiance from the so-called “National” political parties to the ‘New Sudan’. Political analysts and observers believe that the roots of Sudanese problems have strong link with conflicting goals, poor leadership, and a divisive colonial legacy. They also felt it is not surprising that independent Sudan looked a great deal like colonial Sudan to many of its residents.

This point of view is shared by those who reiterate the fact that since Sudan became independent in 1956 from the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium after 59 years of colonial rule, politics in the country have been dominated by religious mysticism and monopolised mainly by the two religious sects and their Northern Riverain elites who created Parties readily labelled “National”. The two main parties are the Umma ‘organized around hard-core religious sect, of the Ansar and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) organized around hard-core religious sect of the Khatmiya. Both sects and parties follow hereditary leaders. The Sudanese Communist Party, the Muslim Brotherhood (known under several names the last of which is the National Islamic Front (NIF)), the Republican Brothers, and smaller Arab nationalist parties (a pro-Iraq and a pro-Syria Ba’th parties and a Nasserite Movement) are also classified as “National” and under the control of elites from the Northern Region. In this endeavour, there is no difference between all the Northern Region elite – formed parties. Whereas the parties formed by the marginalised majority are pejoratively branded distinctly by the Northern political forces as “regional, tribal, ethnic or racial”, whilst defining themselves unilaterally as “national” and relegating the others to the lesser status. Nevertheless and since the 1964 October popular up-rise against the first military junta lead by General Abboud, the marginalised groups of Ethnic and Regional associations formed their own political bodies in order to secure their participation in the political process. Hence the formation of the Beja Congress, the Union of Nuba Mountains, the Darfur Renaissance Front, and a plethora of southern Sudanese parties that constituted the Union of Southern African Political Parties (USAP). Sadly, some of these movements were conned by the well established Northern ‘National’ parties and eventually became extinct having been engulfed by the big fish and bullied by the military totalitarian regimes! The worst of all has been the National Islamic Front (NIF) which assumed power successfully through executing its pre-emptive Coup d’etat on 30th June 1989 to date, and 17 years on. The rein of NIF has been characterised by corruption, despotism, draconian measures, human right abuses and the lack of rule of law.

The National Islamic Front (NIF) regime initially operated its so called ‘Cultural Orientation/ Civilisation Direction ’ programme via implementing military decrees in the north of Sudan on the one hand and declaring a state of jihad (holy war) in the south as though there was a war between Muslims and non-Muslims. NIF exploited sentiments of people through religious incitement. According to shari’a, some implications of such a transformation are that it imposes a duty on all able Muslims to participate in the war effort and legitimizes the enslavement of non-Muslim captives. Evidence was rife that both consequences had actively taken place. Arabic and Islam have become compulsory subjects that all students in the Sudan must take and pass. Ethnic cleansing in the Nuba Mountains had been widely reported. The NIF regime never kept Prisoners of War (POWs) but executed swiftly in cold blood. In a nutshell, the NIF has carried the northern elite’s ideology of Islamism to its logical conclusions. NIF established the most brutal and discriminatory regime Sudan has ever seen. It candidly applied the doctrine of “divide-and-rule” maliciously.

The most fundamental development in Sudan during NIF era has been the emergence of Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/SPLA) under the leadership of the late Dr. John Garang. Since its inception in 1983, SPLM/A had fought for a united democratic and secular ‘New’ Sudan. In many respects the SPLM/SPLA represents a more sophisticated (and armed) expression of the same cause that led to the creation of the said entities, to fight for equality and justice. New forces with strong secular leanings emerged in the north (e.g. Sudan Allied Forces – SAF). All the above groups joined forces with the northern parties to form the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), the umbrella organization of forces fighting against the NIF regime. In terms of constitutional development, the most important step NDA has taken was the adoption of the Asmara Declamation in June 1995. The relevant parts of the declaration call for a future constitution that separates religion and state, prevents the establishment of political parties on religious basis, provides for full equality of all citizens before law irrespective of difference relating to race, religion, culture, or sex, and guarantees full and equal respect for all religious perceptions. Furthermore, the declaration states that all “the human rights standards contained in international and regional conventions and treaties shall become an indivisible part of [future] Sudan’s constitution and any law, decree, decision, or measure contravening those standards shall be void and unconstitutional.”

It was believed that the Asmara Declaration constitutes a firm ground for a democratic and secular constitution for the future of a New Sudan. Nevertheless, many observers find significant pitfalls in the declaration that make it subject to scepticism on certain aspects. The Declaration fails to recognise the past experience in which the (National) Northern elite dominated parties make promises and agreements while they are in the opposition but dishonour them soon after they assume power. Moreover, leadership in Umma Party and Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) is hereditary and religious sect based, there would be no room for any change. They are likely to use their Islamo-Arabism card to canvass for attracting constituents and voters. What make the situation more unmanageable is that hereditary leadership is similar to a monarchy in which accountability is difficult to be ensured. In other words, freedom of speech and self criticism and internal democracy are non existent in the Umma Party and DUP. The same can also be said about all the Northern political parties. In both NIF and the Communist Party leadership is for life unless the individual becomes invalid. Political analysts continue to their critical review of the Asmara Declaration saying that it has not addressed past grievances and injustices which await adoption of wilful corrective policies from the NDA.

One of the strong and plausible arguments against any anticipated success of the Asmara Declaration is that the Northern Region elite dominated political parties have shown to offer unreserved and absolute pardon / clemency to each other after each government change. This impunity has reinforced tyranny, corruption, injustice, discrimination and genocide to be practiced by the military dictators such as the late General Abboud, Marshal Numeiri and Numeiri’s regime partner NIF. Although the National Islamic Front (NIF) was a partner in the Numeiri’s regime, it managed to survive and get away with impunity, participate in the governments that followed and eventually mastermind the 1989 coup d’etat that ended the democratically elected government lead by the Umma Party. This attitude of cronyism is likely to remain in force as long as the ‘National’ religious based parties monopolise politics in Sudan. An example of hypocrisy in the Northern Region parties is what has been learned from the News media reports on the 31st January 2008 that there has been dialogue or rapprochement between the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) lead by Sayed Mohamed Osman Al-Mirghani, bearing in mind that DUP had been at the forefront of assembly parties signed the Cairo Agreement, contained what each party was saying to be applied. According to Mahmoud Hassanain, deputy leader of DUP a new dialogue of that kind with NIF would be considered a call for the abortion of the Cairo Convention and an invitation for further slit that the ruling NCP is after under its “Divide & Rule”. Observers say the planned meeting is doomed to failure as the National Congress Party will adhere to a dialogue that culminates alliance for free. As such, the resulting agreement will be a “top to bottom”, an isolated and would be rejected by the DUP masses. Furthermore, and by contrast the dialogue will be an achievement and an aspiration for the National Congress Party. At the same time, it will be a recipe for conflicts within DUP ranks between those who are against and those pro alliances with the majority ruling NCP.

Social & political theorist, Jeff Weintraub, quotes a proverbial folk wisdom that states “one sign that a ship is really sinking is that the rats all start to jump off””. Sudan’s situation is akin to a wrecking vessel that carries feuding passengers in the middle of nowhere in high seas. Eighteen years on after the forcible seizure of power by the National Islamic Front, politics in Sudan is at crossroads; the tragic conflict in Darfur Region goes on , lingering tensions in the Eastern Region, incomplete peace in Nuba Mountains , Southern Blue Nile and Abyei and the CPA or the Naivasha agreement not only overlooked the situation in Darfur and Eastern Sudan, it consolidated NCP domination over all Northern Sudan states until 2009 when ‘general’ elections are held. According to CPA, the ‘National’ Unity Government (NUG) is a bipartite sole partnership with a lion’s share of power between NCP with a share of 55% and SPLM/A with 28%.

Hopes to accomplish a permanent political solution to end the disastrous conflict that continues to devastate Darfur region and the nation seem grim in the face of the NIF determination to run the country, as it has unilaterally done since it seized power in June 1989 by a military coup and deliberately failing to realize the political and cultural diversity of the Sudan. Furthermore, the poorly performing fragile Government of National Unity (GNU), which, in essence, came about as a direct product of internationally-planned, designed, and enforced peace agreement between the ruling National Congress Party (NCP/NIF) and the SPLA/M gives no room for reforming the political system, a bitter fact that bears innumerable challenges ahead. Worse still are the hungry to rule traditional “National” Northern Riverain elite dominated parties who have never learned to allow peaceful succession of political power in Sudan. So, what is the way forward for the problems of Sudan? Authors Roger Winter and John Prendergast suggest an “All-Sudan Solution” by Linking Darfur and the South through an urgent task that simultaneously and equally support both the resolution of Darfur’s crisis and the timely implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). The authors also add that “the objective of the Darfur movement must be broadened to include achieving a sustainable and comprehensive solution for all of Sudan. The end to both crises rests in the same solution: the democratic transformation of the country, driven by strong internationally monitored peace agreements for the South, Darfur, and the East that are built on shared power, shared resources, and comprehensive political change”. The Proposals put forward by the authors reasonable, though, the task for their implementation requires a monumental effort.

Many disenchanted Sudanese believe strongly that they see no solution to the Sudan’s chronic political problems other than dismantling the National Congress Party (NCP), which came to power through a military coup and overthrew a democratically elected Government. Some others say sanctions will not work because they can readily be circumvented and suggest half dozen EU nations with the military capacity to intervene directly in Khartoum where evil stems from to remove President Bashir’s Arab-dominated brutal government restore democracy and find someone to give Sudan a bold start!

While the dilemma about the future of Sudan continues unabated, the UN Security Council (UNSC) needs to recognize that its inaction in the Darfur genocide is disgraceful. The UNSC Resolutions on the Darfur situation are toothless and the size of the present Hybrid Peacekeeping Force of 9000 troops lacking logistical support for the operation is too little too late. The Rwandan genocide happened because world leaders preferred engaging in the so-called ‘quiet diplomacy’, threatening sanctions and avoiding to get involved in other countries’ ‘internal affairs,’ as innocent defenceless civilians were being murdered in front of the whole world. A perfect time has come for the super powers to ignore the UN and all international laws and save lives, Tony Izuogu, a Nigerian living in South Africa has said. Deng Alor Kuol, currently the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the “Government of National Unity” wrote in his “Notes on the Peace Process in the Sudan” in January the 14th 1999: “The options proposed by the IGAD mediators, if adhered to, are likely to resolve the conflicts”. The IGAD proposals were:

1. Self-determination for the South
2. Unity of the Sudan, based on the condition that the Government of Sudan (GOS) must separate between Religion and State
3. Complete equality of all people in Sudan to be governed by law
4. A Secular & democratic Sudan to be established
5. Fair sharing of wealth
6. In the absence of an agreement on the issue of Religion and State, the people of the South will have the right to determine their political future including Independence

Deng Alor said that the National Islamic Front (NIF) is a government of extremists who believe that Sudan is an Arab-Muslim state, people in Sudan, necessarily, convert to Islam and coerced into Arab cultural assimilation. They whipped up religious sentiments and mobilised Muslims in the North through Jihad against the South. Mr. Alor added that NIF/NCP has finally self-determined their political destiny by adopting a divisive Islamic Constitution that leaves no room for unity. Peaceful coexistence in this context can only happens within two systems of governments, none of them could absorb the other!

There is little on the horizon at the present to bring about a “quick fix” to remedy the current and the future of political problems of Sudan. However, the only possible solution to this state of affairs, Short of separation of the South or total partition of the country, is the adoption of a Secular democratic political system. Incidentally, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) offered a proposal for change to be implemented during an interim period of five years. Multi-party political system with genuine Federal administration countrywide in which power is devolved to autonomous Six Regions i.e. Southern, Northern, Eastern, Central, Kordofan and Darfur Regions; Khartoum remains as a National Capital. In this system, each one of Governors of the Six Regions shall be a Vice President of the Federal Government of Sudan. Presidency in this Federal system shall be Rotational between the Regions for a lasting peace, justice and equality. Will the people of Sudan and the political powers opt to take up a fully secular political system as an amicable compromise for the sake of an attractive Unity of their country? A sixty-four dollar question ($64 question)!

Dr. Mahmoud A. Suleiman is the Deputy Chairman of the General Congress for Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). He can be reached at [email protected].