Sudan peace process unsustainable without democratisation – think-tank

NAIROBI, June 11, 2004 (IRIN) — Sudan will fail to enjoy the fruits of peace if it does not democratise both its peace process and its political system during the six-year transitional period following the signing of a comprehensive agreement, according to the South Africa-based think-tank, the Institute for Security Studies (ISS).

“A sustainable peace is unlikely unless a government is established that enjoys the confidence of the Sudanese masses and demonstrates an unqualified commitment to peace,” said ISS in a report issued this week.

“This in turn assumes that the country will undergo a democratic transformation, something that at present is not even under consideration,” according to the report, entitled “Insecurity in South Sudan: A threat to the IGAD Peace Process”.

IGAD, the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development, is the regional body that has been brokering the Sudan peace talks. View the report www.iss.co.za

Bringing parties other than the National Congress Party (NCP) and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) into the peace process, and creating a transitional national government that enjoyed the confidence of the Sudanese people were essential, said ISS.

“Faced with a faltering central government, a crisis of the state, and growing demands from disaffected regional and tribal groups, only such a [democratic] transformation offers the prospect of a peaceful and united Sudan. Equally important, only a democratic regime can be expected to have the commitment to confront the grievances that gave rise to war in the south and are producing conflict in other parts of the country,” it added.

Despite a cessation-of-hostilities agreement between Khartoum and the SPLM/A, conflicts have been ongoing in 2004 in western Upper Nile and the Shilluk Kingdom in southern Sudan. Both Khartoum and the SPLM/A have repeatedly violated the terms of the agreement by moving their forces and engaging in fighting either directly or through allied militias, according to the ISS.

The wars in the south and in Darfur in the west should be viewed as the “inevitable result of a state dominated from its beginnings by minority interests”, according to the think-tank. “The same malfunctioning state is now spawning revolts among groups inspired by the achievements of the SPLM/A, but fearful that the IGAD peace process will deepen their own marginalisation,” it said.

Muhammad Ahmad Dirdeiry, the Sudanese deputy ambassador in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, told IRIN that Khartoum had agreed to hold multiparty elections within three years and was ready to democratise.

“We don’t feel it’s insurmountable; all of the parties shall prepare to face it. Peace and democracy shall move together hand in hand in Sudan for the first time,” he said.

“The main problem of multiparty elections is that it is always very difficult to control the associated instability that comes with elections and free style of government,” he continued, adding that the “new challenge” would be have to be faced by both the government and the SPLM/A.

Judith Melby, a spokeswoman for Christian Aid, told IRIN that it was essential for the international community to persevere in supporting Sudan towards building up its public institutions and systems of good governance – political, financial and administrative – and to promote the necessary accountability and transparency.

“On a broad geopolitical level, everyone has an interest in making it work. Sudan wants to get acceptance by the international community again. Everyone works out of self-interest, so there are outside exterior forces that give us reason for hope,” she said.

But with opposition to the government in many areas of Sudan, true democratisation could spell a death sentence for the NCP, which came to power in a coup in 1989 and lacks a constituency of supporters, say Sudan watchers.

The SPLM/A, on the other hand, faces the daunting task of transforming itself from an autocratic rebel group fighting a protracted war in the bush, into a legitimised government. “They have spent over 20 years shouting and screaming against the ‘oppressive north’, for human rights and democracy. Now they need themselves to move from rhetoric to reality on these same issues,” an analyst told IRIN.

He said the movement had put all its energies into fighting its battles with Khartoum and none into issues of governance before or once it was in power. “They haven’t thought it through at all well – what it means for the SPLM as a party, for the government of southern Sudan, for lower levels,” he said. “There is a lack of real understanding in terms of how to translate their liberation and democracy theory into practice – and with some senior people a lack of willingness. Old ways die hard.”

The SPLM has to tackle self-governance, draw up a southern constitution, set up effective and responsive institutions of governance, and find competent, educated people to fill a range of posts in the National Assembly, the national civil service (up to 30 percent), the government of southern Sudan, and lower levels of governance. “They don’t have the human resources: it’s going to be a big problem,” he said.

Despite real progress made in the peace process to date – six protocols have been signed by both sides – Sudan watchers agree that the real test will be the implementation of the framework agreements.

“It has taken this long to get broad agreements on what are at the end of the day pretty fundamental human-rights issues. What does that say about the goodwill behind it? It’s questionable. Both sides have to prove themselves, but especially the north,” an analyst told IRIN.

ISS concurred that despite two years of almost continuous negotiations between the two sides, there had been “no increase in the level of trust” between the two sides.

“They have no common aspirations; they have never even worked together. If they had common aspirations, it would have been a done deal months ago. It is their lack of common aspirations and conflicting political agendas that have meant they have to fight tooth and nail for every gain they make or loss they concede,” added an analyst.