Implications of Sudan’s election postponement
By Clement Mbugoniwia
May 14, 2009 — About few weeks ago, the Sudan Elections Commission took a bold decision to declare the postponement of the general elections till February 2010. This move is seen by many as a violation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) signed between the government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) in January 2005. Under this agreement, elections were scheduled to take place in July 2007 but, since then, this date has been postponed time and time again.
Since the signing of the CPA, there has been no real peace in South Sudan because of insecurity caused by armed groups and foreign forces such as the Lord’s Resistance Army. The people are also being robbed of the benefits of peace by institutional corruption and the abuse of power by the Government of South Sudan (GOSS). Tribalism is intense and violent tribal conflicts which have claimed thousands of lives are taking place in almost every state of South Sudan whilst the Government of South Sudan does nothing about them. The road network in South Sudan remains poor. The indictment of and the warrant of arrest for the President of Sudan Omer Al-Bashir issued by the United Nations hangs over the country.
The question that must be asked is what hope is there for this ailing country that has known nothing but war and violent killing since time immemorial?
The CPA is the only hope. It represents not only hope for the suffering people of South Sudan, but an opportunity to correct once and for all the conditions that have precipitated wars. The CPA also creates a framework that allows, among other things, the transformation of the country into a democratic system of governance where there will be total respect for the rule of law, respect for human rights, civil liberty and justice.
While the announcement of the general elections is a welcome sign, it appears that the authorities in Sudan did not move fast enough to put in place all the necessary mechanisms for the elections such as the elections Act, the appointment of Elections Commission, the non declaration of the results of census so that electoral constituencies can be determined and the delays in the demarcation of the border between the North and the South, the lack of implementation of the Abeyei protocol, the conflict in Darfur and the continued insecurity across South Sudan, coupled with poor road network which renders some areas completely in-accessible especially during the rainy seasons. USSP wonders why no effort was made to remove some of these conditions so as to enable the elections to take place as scheduled.
Before the postponement of the elections this year by the Elections Commission, Dr Luka Biong, the southern Minister for Presidential Affairs, told Reuters (Sept. 12th 2008) “it would not be feasible to hold the elections because of heavy rains and logistical problems” and that the “SPLM was considering calling a meeting with the NCP to arrange a change of date”.
This position appears to suggest that the SPLM had not taken into account the fact that July is and has always been a rainy season in South Sudan and that, during that period, it may be impossible to move around, given the very poor conditions of roads. This action of the SPLM makes it possible to conclude that the SPLM is, in fact, not ready to go for elections as it wants to maintain the status quo as long as it remains in power.
Making unity attractive
According to the CPA, the parties to the Agreement, namely NCP and SPLM, agreed to preserve the unity of Sudan and to make it attractive. Some members of SPLM believe that it is the NCP or Government of Sudan that should make unity attractive. This belief is WRONG and MISLEADING because the agreement said that it is the PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT who will make unity attractive! Clearly, the parties to the Agreement are the NCP and the SPLM.
The CPA is clear in what it states. It emphasises that the “parties to the agreement shall seek to make unity attractive during the interim period”. Either this provision has been misunderstood by the SPLM who believe that making unity attractive is the sole responsibility of NCP, or the SPLM are deliberately misleading the people of South Sudan. Either way is a betrayal of the aspirations of the people of South Sudan. In addition, the SPLM also believe that making unity attractive requires the NCP to bring about more socio-economic development to the people of South Sudan. This thinking does not reflect what is expected of the SPLM as the ruling party that is supposed to provide better services to the South Sudanese people. Instead, corruption, nepotism violent tribal clashes and general insecurity have heightened during SPLM Administration. Despite the escalation of violence, GOSS has done very little to address the grave state of affairs. It leaves South Sudanese wonder what an independent South Sudan would be – would it mean anarchy and hard living conditions to ordinary South Sudanese? Indeed, the high level of corruption, non provision of basic services, increased level of violence and insecurity must now be seen as the agenda of those who want to make unity attractive. These inhuman conditions are deliberately designed by the proponents of unity to scare Southerners and tempt them into believing that an independent South Sudan is going to be ungovernable and will have no peace. That would then force Southerners to vote for unity. So, by not solving the current problems in South Sudan, SPLM and GOSS will be seen as standing against the aspirations of the people of South Sudan for independence and freedom from the oppression and suffering they have endured for so long. Whatever SPLM say about the independence of South Sudan will be seen as a lip service without substance. Action speaks louder than words. If the SPLM want to be believed by anybody, then they must urgently start to tackle the serious problems outlined above and other basic concerns of South Sudan.
The CPA was meant to improve living conditions for ordinary citizens who have suffered for too long, but now this perception has been true to only few individuals who now enjoy the resources of the country while the majority of citizens are left unhappy and uncared for. In fact, if a survey is conducted today across South Sudan to see how many people are happy, it will not be a surprise to see that 80% or more of the population are unhappy.
To confirm that the unity agenda is working, President Omar Al-bashir recently stated in an interview with the Sudan Tribune that “we are not worried about the referendum results which we accepted to resort to and so far 40% of Southerners want to stay as part of the united state. This percentage is increasing particularly in light of conflicts between Southern tribes some of which refuse to accept the SPLM. These conflicts did not stop in the last few years”, concluded Al-Bashir. The president referred to the violence that erupted in Jonglei state which led to the death of 170 people and displaced thousands. Some observers have pointed out that security challenges in the South may prevent conducting the national elections in February 2010 and the 2011 referendum subsequently.
This statement by the head of state is worrying and may suggest that making unity attractive is not about developing the South, but the creation of anarchy in South Sudan in order to claim that the South is not fit to rule itself. The fact of the matter is, the government of South Sudan (GOSS) was formed as a result of the CPA with SPLM having 70% of the share in both the Executive and Legislature where the NCP takes 15% and other southern Parties take the remaining 15%. This arrangement effectively qualified the SPLM as the ruling party in South Sudan.
If South Sudanese have failed to govern as observers now seem to believe, it is only the SPLM that has failed as a ruling party to govern, not the people of South Sudan who have tremendous ability and skills to work hard to develop their country. The SPLM has failed to govern, yet it wants to stay in power to maintain the status quo. It fears that elections will seriously challenge its authority.
Furthermore, should the elections take place; there is a danger that the elections may not be free and fair, given the conditions outlined above. On the other hand, should elections be postponed again beyond the time scale given under the recent postponement, there is a possibility that the patience of the ordinary people might run out and there might be dire consequences since the people have suffered so much for so long and hoped that elections would bring a better outcome for them. So, denying the people of the right to vote in the election and, consequently, in a referendum would undermine peace and result in further loss of lives which South Sudan cannot afford. Therefore, to avoid such unwanted eventualities, the CPA must be respected and implemented in its entirety and elections must be conducted as stipulated by the CPA. The parties to the CPA are under an obligation to swiftly create the necessary conditions for elections.
The author is the USSP Leader