The contradictory policies of NCP in Sudan

BY Zechariah Manyok Biar

August 23, 2009 — The National Congress Party (NCP) and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) have stuck in the process of passing the Referendum Bill. NCP is pushing for a 75% ‘Yes’ vote for South Sudan to be allowed to secede and that South Sudanese should be allowed to vote irrespective of where they reside. But SPLM rejects those ideas, maintaining that the secession of the South should be determined by simple majority and that only voters in the South should be the ones to take part in the referendum. So, who is right in this argument?

The current positions of NCP contradict its past decisions. In 2007, NCP refused to allow the participation in the census of millions of war-displaced Southerners living outside Sudan. NCP also refused the inclusion of questions on ethnicity and religion on the census form. Thousands if not millions of us Southerners living outside Sudan where not counted even though some of us are outside Sudan as international students. I came to USA in 2007 as international student with Sudanese passport that I will still use for going back to Sudan in 2010, but I was not counted. That means I am literally not Sudanese when it comes to the right to eat from oil money. Why should I be allowed to vote outside South Sudan for referendum when I did not have the right to be counted for the same reason?

The contradictions in NCP politics is caused by its desire for short term benefits. NCP does not seem to know that many people around the world base their future decisions on what happened in the past because it is difficult to see what is in the future. South Sudanese have given Northerners many chances that led to short term benefits for the North because Southerners are aware that they have a major decision to make in 2011. This was the reason why Dr. John Garang said that unity in Sudan should be made attractive. But NCP has missed the chance for unity.

The first mistake that NCP made during the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) negotiations in Kenya was it refusal to let go the Sharia law. That decision was based on the short term benefit of maintaining of power for NCP in Sudan. The long term question that NCP strategists never asked themselves was the question of what Southerners will think about a united Sudan where the South rejects Sharia and the North refuses to let it go.

The second mistake that NCP made was its opposition to the inclusion of questions on ethnicity and religion on the census form. This decision was based on NCP’s desire to cover up the fact that Arabs are still minority in Sudan. The question NCP strategists never asked was whether lack of ethnicity identification on the census form will stop those who regard themselves as non-Arabs from disengaging themselves from Arab domination during the referendum.

The third mistake that NCP made was its opposition to the participation of Sudanese living outside Sudan in the census. NCP thought that the North would lose nothing since its population was not displaced by North-South war. What NCP officials never considered was that they might have influence in Southerners living outside South Sudan to vote for united Sudan during the referendum. So SPLM took advantage of NCP’s desire for short term benefits of lion share in power and wealth sharing during the interim period, which happens to be shorter than two years now.

Because NCP does not base it decisions on history, its strategists have forgotten the above mistakes and are now thinking that they would use for their selfish benefits the same Sudanese they deprived of their rights during the census.

But that trick will not work at this time. If Southerners in the North are 500,000, according to census results, then they will move to South Sudan and vote on the day of referendum. Sudanese outside Sudan do not have the right to vote because they did not have the right to be counted during the census.

The NCP argument that a 75% ‘Yes’ vote is needed for South Sudan to be allowed to secede also does not make sense. History tells us that simple majority is what people need to secede. This simple majority should be above fifty percent and below 60% or 60% at most.

Montenegro voted by a slim margin of 55.4 percent of voters to secede from Serbia and formed a separate nation in 2006. The European Union needed simple majority above 50 percent to recognize Montenegro as a sovereign state.

Quebec failed to separate from the rest of Canada in 1995 because a simple majority of 50.6 percent voted against separation compared to 49.4 percent that voted for separation.

These examples show that a decision for or against something in democracy is determined by simple majority above fifty percent of the voting population.

NCP might argue that Sudan has its own law about the percentage that determines democratic issues. That could be a valid argument. So let us see what Sudan Constitution says about the percentage that determines winning results.

According to “The Interim National Constitution of the Republic of the Sudan, 2005,” article 54 (2) “The Presidential candidate who wins more than fifty percent of the total votes of the polling electorate shall be the President elect.” Maybe this law applies to president only and not to referendum.

However, according to referendum article of the aforementioned Constitution, article 217 (2) “The National Elections Commission shall conduct the referendum for all the electorate; the subject submitted to referendum would achieve the confidence of the people by obtaining more than half of the number of votes cast,” which means, above 50%.

Based on the above situations, NCP policies are contradictory. SPLM must not give in to NCP tricks this time in the Referendum Bill. If NCP thought that Sudanese outside Sudan did not have rights to be counted during the census, then there is no way the same Sudanese can have rights to vote in the referendum in 2011.

Zechariah Manyok Biar is a graduate student at Abilene Christian University, Texas, USA. He is pursuing a Master of Arts in Christian Ministry and a Master of Science in Social Work, specializing in Administration and Planning. He is a regular contributor to www.newsudanvision.com and www.sudantribune.com. For comments, contact him at email: [email protected]