Sudanese Politics of Exhaustion
At a meeting in al Fashir last week, a civil society spokesman said, “˜we are tired, we have had enough.’ Sudanese civil and political leaders are visibly exhausted.
The President looks weary. The civil opposition leaders are ageing and even Sadiq al Mahdi’s legendary energy is running low. Of the Darfur rebel leaders, only Khalil Ibrahim shows dynamism and verve””but at the moment his energy is directed towards revolutionary destruction rather than building an alternative. Abdel Wahid has given a new meaning to the term “passive revolution” with his de facto exit from any meaningful politics at all. Southern Sudan may be just two years away from its independence, but there is little of the excitement that we would expect in a nation counting down to national liberation.
Sudanese politics has no new big ideas. The two revolutionary ideals of the ruling generation””the competing “˜New Sudan’ projects””fought each other to a standstill. But those who rose to power on the strength of those visions are still in power, bereft of grand new visions, concerned only with the tactics of survival. Their political calculations are based on reacting to events, especially events that emanate from outside.
Sudanese politics has always been an uncertain affair, but with the imminence of the referendum in the south and the shadow of the ICC, the stakes are higher than ever before, and the pressures are commensurately greater. Those who used to advocate democratization and change still do so, but without passion and with less conviction than before. The prospect of elections does not excite people. The country appears to be drifting towards partition. Southern Sudan may achieve its independence by exhaustion of other options, liberation by default.
Political elites are being dragged down by events they cannot control. The upsurge in violence in southern Sudan over the last few weeks is one example. Among southern leaders there is a sense of bewilderment and fear at the level of the violence and its savagery, but not a wide sense of outrage which would mobilize society to end the killing.
In Khartoum, neither government nor opposition can see the light at the end of the tunnel: the NCP has the means and determination to hold on to power, but cannot do more with that power than simply hold on to it. The opposition parties have resigned themselves to the status quo. The most prominent Darfurian leaders have quarantined themselves from national politics.
A practical dimension to exhaustion is the time budget of leaders who have to engage constantly with foreign governments and international agencies which are determined to deal with every detail. One of the highest placed government leaders has approximately 500 meetings with foreigners (diplomats in Khartoum and visitors) each year, in addition to foreign trips. If each meeting is an hour, plus time for preparation, that is about three hours per working day when he is in his office. This man is one of the preferred intermediaries for western governments and international organizations””but if they appreciate him so much, perhaps they would be advised to allow him more time to do his day job.
Few governments of medium-sized countries would have permitted such international intrusion into the running of the affairs of the nation. With so many micro-commitments extracted from the government on a week-to-week basis, it is not surprising when behind the smiles and handshakes the real government response is, wait and see, do the minimum, and conserve energy. And that is for the initiatives which the government accepts””for those it doesn’t, it takes little for them to orchestrate a blockage somewhere along the line.
The opposition and civil society are also worn out by engagement with sponsors and donors, by attending conferences and consultations and capacity building workshops. Some””like the recently-cancelled Mo Ibrahim Foundation meeting in Addis Ababa””held a glimmer of hope for something bigger. But the abrupt cancellation of that meeting after objections from the Sudan Government again plunged Darfurian civil society and political leaders into bitter despondency. When the only well of energy they can draw upon is anger, it augurs ill for the country.
The current-day counterparts of the men and women who led the 1985 popular uprising are probably employed by the UN and international NGOs. The spirit of voluntarism which was such a marked feature of Sudanese society in earlier years has been replaced by a preoccupation with writing proposals for donor grants. More insidiously, they have lost confidence in the value of rehearsing the recommendations for human rights, democracy and good governance which energized them in earlier years.
Sudanese politics is constantly in motion, but moves forward only at a slow and uncertain pace. I have described it as a “˜turbulent state’. The turbulence consumes energy””it can be exciting because it is accessible and constantly full of promise. But it is exhausting because initiatives fade into a routine of endless negotiation over the smallest details, and become superseded by the next proposal that comes along. Delay is always an option, and those who use the skill of tajility“”strategic delay””most adroitly are likely to be the ones with most energy left at the end of the day. Nothing is guaranteed until it happens.
U.S. Special Envoy Scott Gratian’s approach to Sudan reflects the Obama Administration’s strategy towards the Muslim world: unclenching the fist. In the Sudanese case, the fist must be unclenched one finger at a time.
Sudanese have experienced centralized authoritarianism, parliamentary democracy, one-party state, socialist revolution, Islamist revolution, regional devolution, federalism, autonomy for the south, redivision, one-country-two-systems. Whatever is tried will have some echoes of what has gone before. Every political road is blocked by the wreckage of a failed political project, maybe just a couple of years old, maybe decades old.
Symptomatic of exhaustion is the way in which Sudan has run out of names for its agreements and initiatives. We have had “˜National Reconciliation,’ “˜National Consensus,’ “˜Peace from Within,’ “˜Return to the Roots,’ “˜Comprehensiveness,’ “˜Comprehensive Call,’ “˜Comprehensive Peace,’ “˜New Sudan’ (Sudan al Jadid), “˜New Sudan’ (Sudan al Hadith), “˜National Salvation,’ “˜National Renewal,’ “˜Civilization Project,’ “˜Sudan People’s Initiative,’ and many more. It stretches the vocabulary to think of new names that are not tarred by association with past failures.
Dear Alex
I think the major problem which Sudanese facing now is lack of hope and most of the people don’t believe it might be light at the end of the tunnel.
During Nimieri’s 16 years we did not lose hope and at the end of it the solution came from inside. But the situation is totally different now. When I speak to anyone or or visit Sudan people always asking me about what will happen and whether change is coming or not, that was simply because there is no hope of an internal solution. Even the ruling National Congress Party only caves in and recognize pressure from outside. Just look of all the locally-made agreement they were dead before their ink dried, Khartoum Agreement 1997, Sudan Call agreement 2000 and many others. And the agreement s which been achieved due to external pressure still lasting even though facing many difficulties (CPA/ DPA).
Just look back one year the NCP has signed many agreement with political parties and organized many initiative (Taradi Agreement with Sadiq Al Mahdi, Sudan People’s Initiative (Kenana meeting) they all died simply because they are not a genuine attempt, to find a way out. The NCP uses them as tactical approach to easy external pressure by trying to show the world that the internal front is united and everyone is behind the president.
And what make thing trebly bad is the issue of the ICC, which become the only agenda in the NCP calendar, because it is the giant killer for them and represents the most serious threat to their existence in their 20 years in power.
The relation between the two parties on the CPA is at its lowest since 2005, especially after the refusal of SPLM to recognize the result of the census. The Darfur peace process is going no where and the recent development on the war front is a clear sign the we are far away from any peaceful resolution to the conflict.
For most of Sudanese the only option for away out is to wait from a solution from outside and that will not come.
The only way out is the solution from inside the main obstacle for that is the NCP because they know that if Sudanese people get the chance of sitting together freely without any pressure they will find a way out and that definitely will end the NCP grip in power. That why they objected to the Mo Ibrahim Foundation (Mandate for Darfur) conference, I have seen the list of the 300 delegates invited for that conference. Almost one third of them have links with the NCP for them to claim that it is an opposition gathering is rubbish.
If the Sudanese people are given the chance of sitting together whenever it take to address the current deadlock they will find away out which the NCP doesn’t want. It wants only to hang to power with any cost. Yesterday 17 political parties include SPLM called for formation of a national government to run the country until the general election as the mandate of this government will run out in July, but the NCP will not let that to happen and they want to hang to power and with it the control of the government apparatus and that will allow them to manipulate the result of the forthcoming election by rigging it. Things are totally different this time even if they managed to rig the election that will not buy them another 20 years as the southerners will insist on having the referendum in 2011 and that means separation. This will being other problems and still not resolve Darfur, Abyei and the Nuba mountains. If this happens they will only be able to govern Khartoum, the central and the northern states and that might lead to fragmentation of the whole country which is the worst scenario. Hope becomes the most precious commodity in Sudanese politics as one of my friends said to me after the death of Dr John Garang, that our hope of new Sudan has died with the death of Garang.
Ha ha. I love this amusing idea that a government that expels half of the humanitarians agencies assisting 2.5 million displaced persons, and then loots their offices and equipment, and for many years has put every possible petty barrier on their operations, now complains that it is the humanitarian agencies who put too many restrictions on the government! LOL!
Ana
Sudans officials have blindly walked in to a situation where they are answerable to the so called international community when they should only be answerable to their people. I find it utterly ridiculouse that even countries like Ireland believe that they have the right to demand explanations from Sudan in regards to internal policy. Countries as diverse as slovenia and costa rica have voiced their opinions on the Darfur situation in an attempt to boost their egos.
The Government has made their possition very clear in regards to the ICC and has showed the organisations incompetence and limitations,there is no need to get obsessed over it. they must realise that currently the only people making it an issue is them.
Alex the simple reason why rebel leaders such as khalil do not suffer from exaustetion is because they arnt required to answer to half the worlds governments and media simulataneously, they experience little or no pressure from any international government or organ.
Ha ha. I love this amusing idea that a government that expels half of the humanitarians agencies assisting 2.5 million displaced persons, and then loots their offices and equipment, and for many years has put every possible petty barrier on their operations, now complains that it is the humanitarian agencies who put too many restrictions on the government! LOL!
Ana
apparently you seem intent on beeing characature. The complexity of the darfur situation means it easy to manipulate and missrepresnt the facts, hoever there is no warrant for you doing so. you are well aware that those expelled only represent a minority of the Aid groups in Darfur. secondly you attempt to use a straw man fallacy by attacking a point that was never made in this article, Alex never said that the pressure beeing exerted on the government originated from Aid groups the term he used was “foreign governments and international agencies” am sure you are well aware the term international agencies does not solely mean Aid groups the ICC is an international agency so are many government sponsored institutions.
If you intend on arguing a point actually argue that point rather then attempting to dismiss a weaker point that nobody has made.
Also your “lols” and pretend disbelief do nothing to support your infactual point.
While I agree that Sudan is facing a crisis,I believe its largely limited to the realm of politics,for example the ICC desition increases the volatility of sudan but doesnt make any real difference to the average sudanese life,its not going to cause a rise in grain prices or anything real like that and neither is the NCP splm political in fighting. Most of Sudans problems are limited to the realms of politics and have mainly stayed there. The political situation in sudan is chronic and many of these challanges if not meat could spell disaster for sudan,but currently as I read it most of Sudans problems have remained in the political realm,we just have to hope that these problems are resolved before they seep out and cause a catastrophe.
simply my point is that while sudan might be in the midst of immense political challenges and crisises this does not equate to the country as a whole beeing in dissaray the facts on the ground are that the north south peace deal while volatile as nearly everything in sudan is it is holding the rebellion in Darfur is almost passive in its nature with high political stakes but low material and human cost.
The economy has been averaging 8% growth for the past decade and most families suffer less economic pressures.
So hafiz I think it is a bit of a stretch to compare sudan now to during nemires days when the problems werent just in the news it was affecting people,the sort of crisis when you have to start quing for bread at 4 am in the morning and staples such as sugar beeing rationed isnt the same sort of crisis as the one with the ICC.
Sudan is standing on a cliff edge but it curently isnt falling,the hard work is keeping it that way,and that challenge is what is causing all the exaustion in sudanese civil society and government.
The exhaustion of Sudanese political leaders is because every one of them can see the solutions to the nation’s problems but none of them is willing to make the sacrifices necessary to turn these solutions from theoretical to practicality. The government including the civil service, the ruling party, the judiciary, the army and the security services are filled with individuals who either not competent or not motivated to do their jobs, and there is no discipline for those who live a life of indolence and simply pretending to work. If a hard-working and well-meaning official is given a task, he will fail and nine tenths of the failure is because of the dead wood in the system. Imagine trying to drive a car which needs you to pump the accelerator ten times in order to begin to move, the brake comes on at random, and most of the time you turn the steering wheel nothing happens. That is the Sudanese governmental system today. Every time there is a problem the government tries to fix it in isolation by bypassing this broken-down car, but this just serves to use up the precious time of the few individuals who can actually make anything happen, creates an even more byzantine complicated system, and further demoralises the poor fellows trying to run the regular bureaucracy. We get frustrated by a problem so what do we do? We create a new commission or a new directorate or even a new legal system. The system is now so complicated that the only people who can actually make something happen are those few individuals who are at the heart of power, and they must spend most of their time tending the system itself and not solving the problems of the country.
Dear Mohanad,
So your contention is that Sudan government is just a normal government like any other African government but the “foreign governments and international agencies” single out Sudan for special treatment of too many meetings because they just don’t like Sudan? Tell me why you think Sudan has too many meetings compared with any other African country? I’ll also ask a similar and related question: Sudan government has a whole bunch of bureaucrats and security officers and their job is to harass journalists and editors and confiscate newspapers, and censure Internet etc. Probably in your view it is because Sudan is a special African country being targeted for destabilization by journalists etc and so all that is necessary, is that right?
Or maybe the reason there is a politics of exhaustion to use the phrase of Alex is that Sudan is ruled by a military dictatorship! So the argument and reference and discussion of Alex to the “foreign governments and international agencies” is very amusing because it distracts from the main point and why would someone want to distract from the main point I do not know.
Ana
Dear Ana Majnun
I suggest you observe the visitors to any senior government office in Khartoum. You won’t find NGOs: they are not the issue here. You will find endless delegations of UN senior officials, western governments (ministers, special envoys, legislators), the Arab League, AU and OIC, and similar. In al Fasher alone over the last week there delegations from the UN Dept of Humanitarian Affairs, the AU High Level Panel, the AU Chairperson, the SG of the Arab League, the head of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the US congress.
The point in question here (among others) is not to allocate blame. The responsibility for the great majority of the country’s problems falls on this government and its predecessors. The point is to question the wisdom of expending so much time and energy on international dignitaries visiting Sudan, often for very fleeting visits without discernible outcomes, but which tie down the government and also the international organizations. Sometimes it seems the busiest man in UNAMID is the Protocol Chief and a big propotion of the security assets are tied up in protecting visitors…
The number of visitors and high dignitaries visiting the country I presume a sign of dynamism, which indicates how the political arena in Sudan is vivid. As Sudanese observing the situation there are many lessons need to be drawn. The conflicts in Sudan were being kept since its independence. This government is the sole one who faced these entire problems at once and decided to deal with them. On the same token, it does forget its responsibilities in development and building a coherent nation. Unfortunately, we as Sudanese have very weak memory. We used to look at difficulties of today without drawing any lessons from the previous ones. This reality. The politicians aren’t aliens they are part of this nation. They behave the same, however, we are learning a lot from all these visits although it is very exhaustive. It constitutes a good source of enlightening on how other assess and see the country. I have no doubt at all that Sudan is emerging as a regional power not necessarily in terms of physical power alone. The difficulties facing the country and its political leaders would definitely produce future leaders with globalize thinking and approach to all conflicts.
I think what we need is patience. Philosophical scholars used to say you couldn’t solve a problem on the level of thinking where you have created it. This theme is there in the mind of political leaders. For instance, the conflict in Darfur, as a conflict rooted for decades with causes of multifaceted nature, will soon be resolved if the interference of some regional and overseas ceased. This also couldn’t stay for long giving the changing interests in the politics of today. So let us be optimistic. Let us hope for better future. Life in itself is based on hopes and dreams.
Mohammed Hassan Babiker
Ana majnun am presuming that your question whether the sudanese Governement is normal or not is a crude way of suggesting that Sudans Government is illegitamate, an issue I have no interest in getting in to since this argument can be used to descredit any partially or non democratic country.
Secondly offcourse I am suggesting that there is a huge disparity between media coverage and political pressure on Sudan compared to other African countries and this is because there is. The political pressure exerted on sudan whether through politicised lobby groups such as save Darfur or forighn Governments is much greaer then on any other African country.
you also seem to be diverging greatly from the argument on to issues such as the press law and media freedom,and then ironically you accuse the author of the article of diverging from the point apparently in an attempt to compansate for the fact that you have gone off on a tangent.
My only question to Mohammed Hassan Babiker, with all due respect, is that: if the Sudanese politicians did not learn from all that heap and accumulation of the past experiences, how can you claim that “we are learning a lot from these visits” and that they are sources of enlightenment?
Actually, I do think that, as Sudanese we are too much optimistic, apologetic, and sometimes create and live in our own illusions. I do not think that we have witnessed any positive political developments in the past decades, and I doubt that any further “patience’ would bring the type of leadership that you are aspiring or anticipating to see.
As Alex interestingly said in a previous post : for the British, the prove of the budding is the eating. Another participant quote “show me the money”.
For me, what is happening is a logical extension to our mentality and nativity. In the past, I used to laugh when our national football team goes on external matches and harvest defeat after defeat, nonetheless, they team managers and players kept to claim that ” Ik-tasabna khibra wa Eh-tikak”, i.e. we Win/ we gained a lot of experience.
Again, we have to admit that, Sudan represent and contain a multitude of interests for the International community, and that is why peace making for Sudan could never be a “Sudanese-to-Sudanese” attainable process, albiet theoretically and actually are possible. And as long as this is the situation, the state of interest-driven exhausting meetings will go on and on.
Great post Mr de Waal. Again, your insights into Sudanese politics is superior to even most Sudanese. Your literary style displays both depth and breadth. One of the greatest challenges facing Sudanese today is the lack of cultural ability to portray transparency and command a masterful discourse of clear communication with Westerners (especially the English speaking realms where it is paramount that an accurate display of our political climate be directed). This is mostly attributable to the mismanagement as well as inability of the Government of Sudan to raise a critical educational awareness of Sudanese with respect to the Anglo-American world. Nevertheless, great post. Please keep up the good work.
“Some—like the recently-cancelled Mo Ibrahim Foundation meeting in Addis Ababa—held a glimmer of hope for something bigger. But the abrupt cancellation of that meeting after objections from the Sudan Government again plunged Darfurian civil society and political leaders into bitter despondency.”
considering that one of the so called advisors for this supposedly unpartisan conference was Eric reeves, I think that the Government had every right to feel suspiciouse about mandate Darfur. I suspect this meeting was more about solidifiying opposition to the Government then to find a lasting solution for the Darfur conflict, hence the reason why they felt it was neccesary to hold it across the border.
in anycase I
These “analytical articles” are thought provoking, but do not rise to the level of facts based, field oriented, wide based research that gives clear policy options to the various stakeholders or antagonists.
It may be time that taboos be broken in dealing with Sudan’s issues. It may also be prudent to start developing bold and realistic, strategically constructed, scenarios for say the coming 5 years.
The “cry”, the problem identification and observations have had more than enough time and attention. We must go beyond that.
For example:
Will South Sudan separate and what will be the ramifications on South Sudan and Sudan at large?
Will Darfur soon move from a call for political justice and social justice to self-determinations and what will be the ramifications?
Which international party is willing to have full oversight and take full stock of the anticipated elections? What are the possible outcomes and their impact on political and societal life in Sudan? On international relations?
If it is claimed that Sudan is a ” Fragile State” moving towards being a “Failed State” can it be kept intact through “State Building” or does it need “Nation Building”?
How are the regional dynamics changing and what roles may they play in a “New Sudan” that we may not have so far known? In that, what will be the fate of the Nile Waters Agreements and the Sudan/Egypt relations with Egypt parachuting over Khartoum to Juba?
At the centre of all questions is: Is Sudan a “Nation State” or a “Political State”? Does it carry the genes of its disintegration in its structure?
I believe that the kind of questions that are needed to be asked now (and that must enjoy honest research) must be different and more fundamental than dealing with manifestations and irrelevant proximate causes of the dilemmas of Sudan.
If the Primary Stakeholders have lost the initiative and can not look beyond their feet, one hopes that the observers and the practitioners do not.
Stay well
Tag Elkhazin