Why should the Separation of south Sudan still remain a taboo?

By Justin Ambago Ramba

August 9, 2009 — The separation of south Sudan remains in the centre of the Sudanese politics since the Torit uprising in 1955 up till today. Two civil wars have been so far fought and two peace agreements signed. With each agreement to stop the war, the negotiators have in both times ended up signing in the favour of the unity of the Sudan.

However as many south Sudanese have come to realize, these subsequent solutions reached with the ultimate aim of maintaining the status quo of a united Sudan have always ended been abused by the northern politicians who unfortunately insist to be the only ones eligible to lead the nation following every settlement.

No doubt that somewhere the southerners have maintained that the unity of the country can never result in a peaceful Sudan unless the north changes its mind set of looking down on their fellow southerners and only expecting of them to play subordinate roles in the running of the nation.

In an attempt to address the above chronic misconception, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) signed between the South and the North in 2005 has stated that the signatories to the agreement must give unity a chance by making it attractive to the southerners during the six year period, while clearly defining the south’s right to self determination through an internationally monitored referendum to be held in early 2011.

In this referendum the southerners should be able to vote to either remain in the united Sudan or opt for their independent separate country.

Unfortunately the National Congress Party (NCP/NIF) of President Omer al Bashir and to some extent the unionist within the SPLM parties have always wrongly over used the article in the agreement by imposing the unity of Sudan on the people of the South using exactly the same old tools to which the southerners have already developed resistance.

Mindful of the fact that the separation of the South from the North is one of the options clearly stated in the CPA, while stressing the priority of maintaining unity by the signatories, all other political parties who are not in any way signatories to the agreement should be allowed their full democratic rights to raise the banner of secession as long as it is within a peaceful democratic practice.

At this particular juncture it is totally right to feel that as long as the two options (Separation and Unity) remain both as an integral part of the CPA and the Interim Constitution of the Sudan, campaigning for the realization of any one of them should in no way be forced into being a clandestine activity as in the old Anya Nya days.

Separation of the South for that matter though not a CPA priority REMAINS a legal and a constitutional option in the Sudanese politics per the agreement. There is no where in the entire agreement that secession of south Sudan should be fought against nor does a call for it constitute any breach of the political party’s code which is based on the recognition of the CPA in its entirety including the expressions that suggest that at the end of the six years southern Sudan can secede should it opt so.

In the light of all the above it is in deed both necessary and vital to bring to the attention of all the South Sudanese masses and the international community that by continuing to harass the Secession Mass Movement of South Sudan which is no longer against the Sudanese constitution per the CPA, and their political parties who use peaceful means to propagate for their noble cause (a separate south Sudan) as stipulated therein should not be allowed to pass unchallenged.

Recently a secessionist politician, the head of the United Democratic Front party (UDF), Peter Abdel Rahman Sule, has been reported to have strongly criticized the SPLM for not supporting his party for registration by the Political Parties Affairs Council.

The Council rejected the UDF registration due to the party’s demands for south Sudan separation in its constitution. Sule described Council’s stance as contradictive with the laws and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.

Mr. Sule of the UDF who is an ally of the SPLM within the forum of the southern Sudanese political parties has repeatedly said that his party is in a deal with the SPLM meant for mutual support on issues pertaining to the interest of the South.

Further more there is a vital point raised by one of the compatriots in the media that UDF is amongst the parties that can freely campaign for the independence of the south, something the SPLM always finds embarrassing to do in the open as it is bound by the CPA to give a priority for the unity of the Sudan.

With the CPA as the central point of reference, sound minded southerners should understand that what those South Sudanese political parties who make secession of the South from the North their main agenda should not be viewed as mere power hungry people. They may be hungry people, but they are hungry for the freedom of south Sudan.

Many fellow countrymen whose commentaries I have come across in the media seem to be terribly confused on the issue of multi partisan politics. It might rightly reflect their mental age and lack of relating to the realities of this country’s history, yet such people badly need political guidance from their political parties in the first place then the public. The sooner these kinds of programs are offered to those in need the better or otherwise we will end up breeding a whole generation of totalitarian terrorists who hardly have a room for tolerating the other.

If someone keeps repeating the question that why do people want to create many political parties, then this person is completely unaware of what politics is all about. But here is a simple answer to the above question: People tend to create many political parties because people have many different ideas and even different interpretations to the same problems and how to find solutions for them.

And when the existing political parties fail to provide the appropriate environments and fora where sound debates can be held and each and every member’s idea counts, the next thing would obviously be the search for the creation of the missing forum

Why don’t all the people join the SPLM or NCP? The answer is that why should all the people join the SPLM and the NCP in the first place? Secondly if the SPLM or the NCP were offering what the people need then obviously there wouldn’t have been this discussion. So why is it that the SPLM or the NCP are not appealing to all the people is a problem to be solved by the two parties themselves.

Why are people struggling for leadership when the main problems have not been solved? Well you see leadership is a natural instinct in the human being. All of us are meant to lead our lives the way it pleases us. Therefore any one who leads her/his life is already a leader in life.

But as to why people do not want certain leaders is because these leaders in question are simply incompetent. Therefore it is no surprise to see concerned citizens trying to lead and it’s only sensible to lead when there is a need e.g. a problem that needs to be tackled etc. otherwise what is the point of wanting to lead others when they can lead their lives alone.

Multi party system is not the problem of the Sudanese politics but rather the solution .It is the single party totalitarian systems that should be blamed for all the mess they have created. If you are not listening to those who differ with in opinion then you can only realize your failures when you have already undone all the goods things you initially started with, and that will be at a time when apologies would no longer heal the rifts nor sort out the damages.

UDF must be registered as it is a party that works for the realization of the CPA articles. It is stated that by the year 2011 southern Sudanese shall practice their right of self determination in an internationally supervised referendum to choose either to remain a part of the united Sudan or opt to secede to form its independent nation.

In another development, the NCP and its allies in Khartoum have already come out openly declaring their intentions to make the separation of south Sudan an impossible task through the creation of certain laws, one of which has already been used to the effect of barring the registration of the UDF, others more are expected to come up.

Though the general trend of events are not reassuring and some observers think that the country may end up not going for elections given the current developments concerning the disputed census results, but yet for the sake of the record the SPLM shouldn’t have abandoned its southern ally the UDF.

However the journey is still long and tomorrow the UDF will have learnt its lessons when it comes to working with the southern unionist who when times are tough, prefer to stand on the fence and on which side they end up really makes no much difference for them as long as they remain in power sharing exploiting the poor peoples name..

This fact can not be ignored and that the oppression of one South Sudanese Nationalist group anywhere is the oppression of all South Sudanese Nationalists groups worldwide. Today is the UDF, tomorrow it may be another yet our vow is to permanently change the map of the Sudan come 2011.

Dr By Justin Ambago Ramba is the Secretary General United South Sudan Party (USSP), he can be reached at: [email protected].