Postpone Sudan’s elections
By Savo Heleta
Elections in Sudan need to be postponed until after the 2011 referendum or simplified and held only for executive positions at this time.
February 12, 2010 — Sudan’s first multi-party elections in over two decades are planned for 11 April 2010. As stipulated in the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that ended the north-south conflict, the elections would give a chance to Sudanese to freely choose their own representatives for the first time since 1986.
The elected officials would then be able to work on making unity of the country attractive to the southerners who will vote in the self-determination referendum in January 2011 whether to remain in a united Sudan or form an independent country.
When the CPA was signed in January 2005, the elections were planned to take place in 2008 or no later than July 2009. That would give the people in Sudan between two and three years to experience the life under some form of democratic and representative rule.
With the elections now scheduled for April 2010, almost at the end of the CPA interim period and less than a year before the southern referendum, one must ask whether the complex and expensive elections are necessary at all. If Sudan proceeds with the elections, can they be free, fair, and credible? Will the elections lead to pluralism and democracy or plunge the country into post-election instability and chaos?
Can the Elections be Free, Fair, and Credible?
The ruling National Congress Party (NCP) and southern Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), the two signatories of the CPA, are still in a deadlock over the population census conducted in 2008. The census results were to define electoral constituencies, affecting the number of parliamentary seats for which each Sudanese state would be eligible for. The SPLM rejects the census claiming the NCP increased figures for the north, thus automatically reducing the south’s proportion of the population.
In the next few months, Omar al Bashir and the ruling National Congress Party are expected to do anything to stay in power. After they had marginalized and terrorized the majority of Sudanese for two decades, it is unlikely they will now have a large following in the country, despite their claim.
However, they control all spheres of life in the north – the government, police, intelligence services, army, paramilitary forces, as well as state TV and radio, and business and financial institutions. Even though using state resources for electioneering is forbidden by the election law, no one should be surprised if the NCP uses all the above to its advantage.
This election is a chance for Bashir to finally gain some legitimacy after 21 years in power, which he took in a military coup in 1989. The NCP leaders knew very well that they never had a chance of taking power through elections; that’s why they took it by gun.
In 2009, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Bashir for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. Bashir knows that the only way to stay out of jail is to remain in power by any means.
Opposition parties and local and international observers have already alleged widespread fraud, vote buying, and forged papers during the registration for the elections. Furthermore, Sudan’s strict media and security laws threaten to undermine freedom of speech and assembly.
Richard Cornwell, Africa expert at the Institute for Security Studies in South Africa, says we should expect some form of vote rigging by both the NCP and SPLM but that there is every chance these will not be allowed to get out of hand. He thinks both the NCP and SPLM have too much to lose if things go horribly wrong.
Darfur and South Sudan
Many internally displaced people (IDP) from Darfur refused to be counted in the 2008 census or register for the elections in their current places of residence. Sudan’s Election Act does not make any specific provisions for voting by some 5 million IDPs in their places of origin, more than half of whom are from Darfur.
Those in Darfur who have registered will probably not be able to participate in the elections due to insecurity. The only group that will benefit if millions displaced by the current regime don’t vote are the NCP and Omar al Bashir.
South Sudan will also face immense problems related to the elections. It is very likely that the SPLM, former rebel movement still in the process of transforming itself into a political party, will try to sideline other parties by any means.
It is also possible that the SPLM will use the resources of the Government of South Sudan, where the SPLM controls 70% of the institutions, for election campaigning, thus putting other political parties at a huge disadvantage. Other major problems in the south are lack of security in many areas, poor transport and communication infrastructure, and very limited voter education among the population, most of which is illiterate and will be voting for the first time ever in April.
Complicated Elections
Security, freedom of speech and assembly, and potential for vote rigging are not the only issues threatening the credibility of the elections. April elections are considered the most complicated in Sudan’s history.
Sudanese will be voting for the president of Sudan, National Assembly, president of the government of Southern Sudan, Southern Sudan Legislative Assembly, and governors and assemblies for the 25 states of Sudan. In the north, voters will cast 8 separate ballots. In South Sudan, where according to the UN literacy rate is 24%, voters will cast 12 separate ballots.
The election administration will have to print and accurately distribute 1,268 different types of ballots to the electoral districts around the country. Most parts of Sudan, the largest country in Africa, are not easy to reach and only have limited access to electricity and communications.
What after elections?
Post-election counting of the votes could take a month or more given the large number of ballots, second rounds, and possible complaints by the parties. During this time, Sudan could face numerous claims of vote rigging, protests, and violence.
What will happen after the votes are finally counted and no party wins the majority on the national and north/south levels, which is the most likely scenario? Will Sudan enter a period of peaceful coalition building, power sharing, and credible and functioning civilian democracy? Or will history repeat itself and the elections will lead to unstable coalitions, fighting over power, human rights violations, and yet another coup for “national salvation,” as happened time and again in the past?
It is important to note that since the 1956 independence, no multi-party election has ever produced a stable government in Sudan.
Way Forward
If the elections proceed as planned, the African Union and the wider international community need to take serious interest and send election observers. The observers should not be in Sudan only for the elections, but need to observe the campaigning process which starts in February, ensure fair access to the state media by all political parties, transparency of the electoral process, and freedom of speech and assembly.
The purpose of the first post-CPA elections in Sudan was to give the people a chance to experience life under representative and democratic government and give a chance to elected politicians to “make unity attractive” to the southerners.
With the elections now scheduled for April 2010, almost at the end of the CPA interim period and less than a year before the southerners vote in the self-determination referendum, the elections need to be postponed until after the 2011 referendum or simplified and held at this time only for executive positions – president of Sudan, president of South Sudan, and state governors.
The time has run out to “make unity attractive” in Sudan as it will probably take a few tense months of vote counting, possible second rounds for presidents of Sudan and South Sudan and state governors, and contesting of the results that there will be no time to make any meaningful difference before the referendum. Another reason for the postponement of the elections or voting only for executive positions is the fact that, in the case of southern secession, many of the elected institutions would loose their relevance and new elections would be needed in both the north and south again in or after 2011.
In the present situation, with so many issues unresolved around the country, Sudanese national elections would not lead to pluralism and democracy but rather to instability and post-election chaos. The elections as currently planned would be a logistical nightmare for any country, let alone Sudan, leaving too much room for post-election manipulation of votes.
Note: This article is based on Savo Heleta’s paper “Elections in Sudan: Chaos Before Stability.” The full paper can be downloaded here:
http://www.savoheleta.com/index_files/Sudan_Elections.htm
Savo Heleta is a PhD candidate in Development Studies at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University in Port Elizabeth, South Africa. He is the author of “Not My Turn to Die: Memoirs of a Broken Childhood in Bosnia” (AMACOM Books, New York, March 2008). He can be reached at [email protected]