The SPLM: Reconciling the South’s public opinion with the New Sudan Vision
I will ask Dr Elthawig Kameir to allow me to take the heading of this article from his analysis of December 24: “The SPLM and the Imperatives of Internal Dialogue” which was posted on Sudan Tribune. In his article, the sub-title was “˜Reconciling self-determination with unity’. I have reversed this sub-title in this article to express my feeling about the current state of public opinion in the South as it relate to the question of unity or separation and the historic new Sudan vision amongst the SPLM supporters.
Dr Elthawig Kameir, Yasser Arman, Dr Mansour Khalid, The late Yousif Kuwa Mekki and the late Dr John Garang were the top people whose names were synonymous to the New Sudan Vision during the 22 years of the liberation struggle. His article which I quoted above provoked an enormous soul-searching and critical evaluation of one’s position on the issue of self-determination and the new Sudan vision among the SPLM supporters, especially us who are in the South.
Although Dr Elthawig’s article called for an internal dialogue amongst the SPLM supporters and cadres, I used it to evaluate my own political thoughts and the thoughts of millions of Southerners like me who 10 years ago would never think of separation as a solution to the fundamental problem of the Sudan. In this short article, I will evaluate the decision of separation and the new Sudan vision from the point of view of a desperate South Sudanese who if he go to the polling booth today will cast his ballot in the separation box despite 17 years of upholding the new Sudan vision.
Many people ask, Why have the SPLM’s current leadership abandoned the vision of the new Sudan? Did the New Sudan Vision died with Dr John Garang? I may not know the answer to the 2nd question. Dr John Garang was a savvy leader who knew how to influence the public opinion very well. He would give hope where there was complete hopelessness. At this juncture, I cannot gauge what he would have done in the face of this desperate situation.
My answer to the first question is that the SPLM’s current leadership has not abandoned the vision of the new Sudan. The likes of Yasser Arman, Pagan Amum, Abbas Goma and the rest who are arrested, tortured and humiliated in the police cells of Khartoum are fighting for the new Sudan vision. In my opinion, there is less that the SPLM leadership can do, under the prevailing circumstances, more than it has been doing since 2005.
However, the entire populace in the South Sudan feels that the moment of truth has arrived. The CPA was signed five years ago, ending the war and is now coming to the end, but the Southern populace feel that nothing has changed of the old Sudan in Khartoum:
1. The oppressive Sharia laws in Khartoum constantly show South Sudanese that they don’t belong there. The flogging of Southern women by the police is an everyday even. It was surprising to see the whole world appalled when Lubni Hussein (The UN worker) exposed that evil oppression four months ago.
2. Southerners are still detained without trial for drinking locally made traditional drink called Araqi.
3. The pre-CPA policies of discriminations are still intact.
4. The allegation of NCP instigating the current security situation in the South through LRA and other proxies deepen the distrust and suspicion about Khartoum’s motive on CPA.
During the 22 years of war, the SPLM used to tell Southerners that the war would be won and the Islamists policies of segregation would be eradicated and replaced with the all-inclusive vision of new Sudan, that there was no point of opting for a separate South Sudan. After 22 years, both the SPLM and the national Congress Party came to realize that the war was a loss on both sides and on the country at large. The peace was signed and the people of South Sudan were promised to determine after six years whether the all-inclusive Sudan they were aspiring for is achieved and that they can vote to remain in a united Sudan, or the unity is not an attractive option to them and that they can vote for separation.
Now, five years after the CPA, the policies that were in place before the CPA are still in place. There is no change in sight for the foreseeable future. Those elites at the centre who currently hold power are willing to shed blood if their power and ideology is tempered with; the NCP have bowed that they will never relent on the Islamist ideology. On Dec 12, Nafie Ali Nafie had this to say:
“If SPLM insist on imposing their secular ideology, we can go back to war, we offered 50 000 martyrs in the war and we are ready to offer 100 000 more martyrs.”
The South Sudanese people have suffered enough and do not want another war. I must tell you that nobody abhors war more than those who lived through its horrors, ordeals, pains and tribulations. A woman named Cecilia from Eastern Equatoria state was recently reported to have said, “I and my 5 children survived the 22 years of war here in Torit. But now I must say, if the war breaks out again I will not survive it. I will die.” The SPLM witnessed the unbearable suffering of the people of South Sudan during the 22 years of war and even long before that. Most of its members like Cecilia are victims and survivors of that war. It does not want to take the people of Sudan back to war to force the Islamists in Khartoum into accepting a secular all-inclusive Sudan as it believed before the CPA. President Salva Kiir always assures the Sudanese people in any forum he speaks that under his leadership, he will ensure never to take the Sudanese people back to war.
Under the current circumstances, the only tool the SPLM is left with is a political mean to fight for its ideology. However, they are in a very weak position in this battle. On one hand they have to cooperate with the NCP as peace partners to ensure the implementation of the CPA provisions, on the other, they have to fight its dictatorial and Islamist policies to ensure a democratic transformation which may lead to a new and a united Sudan. Moreover, NCP has the police force, the security force, the mechanical majority in the national assembly and the constant threat that they will abrogate the CPA and return the country to war.
The recent arrest of the SPLM politicians and the ban on the opposition demonstration shows the vulnerability of the SPLM as a party in this battle. The approval of the security law by the parliament using the NCP’s mechanical majority despite SPLM protest also shows SPLM’s vulnerability in this battle.
The NCP only agreed to the referendum legislation to shut the SPLM up from further democratic protests. Ibrahim Ghandour, a senior figure in the NCP, warned the SPLM on December 13 that any attempt to stage a demonstration on December 14 would nullify the agreements that were made on the referendum legislation. He added that the agreement stipulated that the SPLM will not be part of any protest as long as the outstanding issues in the referendum legislation have been resolved. The fact that the SPLM would have to buy the implementation of the CPA provisions from the NCP with their non-participation in the national democratic processes shows the vulnerability of the SPLM in this battle.
Under this unfortunate state of affairs, few people in South Sudan expect the forthcoming elections to bring any significant change in Khartoum. It is naive to think that the NCP will allow free and fair election. If NCP cannot allow the oppositions to gather, how can anyone think that they will allow a different party to win an election and remove it from power? It is an open secret that the outcome of the April election will just be an endorsement of the status quo. Whether the international community will declare such elections a success just by the sheer fact that an election has taken place in Sudan since 1986 or whether it will declare it as fraudulent will be as irrelevant as many other international resolutions on Sudan.
The people of South Sudan have therefore turned their hearts and minds to the only thing they see as an alternative to the status quo; the separation of South Sudan from Khartoum. Many analysts and opinion polls correctly suggest that South Sudanese will overwhelmingly vote for independence. To them, it is a natural choice. They do not and will not accept an Islamic Arab Sudan as presented by the NCP. They have been resisting this mono-religious and mono-ethnic system of governance since 1956 and have gone to war twice because of it. If the Islamists in Khartoum think that it is a red line to have a secular and inclusive Sudan that represent the values of all its citizens, then the people of South Sudan have no choice but to separate and form a country that is all inclusive of its citizens.
The Southern politicians both in the SPLM and other political parties are left with either of these two choices: to set sail with the feelings of their constituents and dance to the separation drum or be unresponsive to their feelings and become irrelevant to them. In most of the rallies attended by the politicians in the South, the most vocal supporters of separation receive the loudest cheer and applause. Most politicians including the president have acknowledged that and voiced their support for separation irrespective of their party positions. Even the NCP’s vice chairman, Dr Riek Gai Kok, when he visit South Sudan last month for the first time since the signing of CPA, he quickly acknowledged these feelings in the atmosphere and his welcoming speech was inclined towards what he called the people’s choice despite NCP’s hostile position toward South separation.
It is almost certain that when South Sudanese go to the polls in January next year, no sane unionist whether in the SPLM, NCP or other Southern parties will tell them not to vote for separation. It will be the moment of truth for all. NCP will not erase decade’s long distrust by promising that it will treat the Southerners better starting from February 2011 should they vote for unity. SPLM Unionists on the other hand will not tell the people of South Sudan that “this current situation (Sharia law in Khartoum, NCP policies in place) was the New Sudan vision we promised and hence you (Southerners) should vote for an attractive all-inclusive Sudan.”
Even the late Dr John Garang, the architect of the New Sudan Vision, had this to say during the SPLM’s first convention in 1994 in Chukudum; “I assure you all that the present NIF regime is the last government of the Old Sudan for the next government after the NIF will either be the government of the New Sudan according to the SPLM vision, or else the Sudan will break up into several states.” At the current state of despair, many people in the South believe that moment of disintegration is now.
As President Salva Kiir said on December 27, the next 12 months will be the most challenging times in the history of the Sudan. No one can tell with absolute precision what will happen this year. By January 2011, the North and South will either part ways as the current situation indicate or NCP will decide to abrogate the CPA and engulf the country into another destructive war, or both. Whatever will happen, history will not curse any spell on the people of South Sudan on their decisions or SPLM as a party for any of its actions.
Dear Yong,
this is a prescient, sober and gloomy analysis. I agree that little has been done to make unity attractive, and that time is short. I agree too that the stakes are so high for the NCP that it cannot afford to lose the April election. I suspect the international community will need to find a way to accept that electoral outcome and then re-engage with the NCP-led government in a more constructive manner, so that the option of a soft landing re-emerges.
It is also clear from your article that a vote for separation is, in part, a counsel of despair. It may be a rational decision under the circumstances, but it treats secession as the less bad option, rather than as a decision to build something positive and new. In turn, this reflects an enduring failure of the SPLM and other Sudanese liberation movements, which have focused on “liberating” the marginalized areas, as territories, rather than liberating the marginalized peoples, as peoples. Huge numbers of those people reside within the centre of Sudan including the national capital, which is where the political economy is most developed.
In struggling against a dominant power, a liberation movement shouldn’t complain that the dominant power is repressive and uses all means at its disposal. That’s to be expected. What’s needed is a political strategy that is stronger and smarter than that of the oppressor. The greatest down-side of international solidarity is that it can lead a national political movement into over-estimating the importance of foreign influences. A strategy based on publicizing injustices and amplifying complaints is essentially a policy of mobilizing international leverage. We have seen just how limited those influences are. The challenge for the next 12 months is for the SPLM to step up its domestic mobilization. The SPLM and the southern people have been victims for too long.
Alex,
I agree with you that SPLM did not do much to mobilise the marginalised people after the CPA especially in the North. Currently SPLM looks more of a regional party than a national party it once was. Some people in the South may say that the SPLM has done a lot to mobilise the Southerners, promoting reconciliation amongst them and reduced the pre-CPA mistrust.
I don’t under-rate what the current leadership has done as far as the implementation of the CPA is concerned. But as you pointed out, it was expected that the NCP would do everything in its power to thwart SPLM’s effort. Now the NCP has largely succeeded in reducing SPLM’s involvement in the affairs that are outside the CPA domain.
At this point, Southerners think that all SPLM can do is to deliver them the right of self-determination before the NCP reverse their CPA gains. Northerners on the other hand see SPLM as the party whose main objective, at least for the moment, is to seek self-determination of Southerners and not the new Sudan vision they once promised.
Reconciling the two objectives: Self-determination and new Sudan vision, presents the hardest political challenge to the SPLM cadres. Hence the inconsistency we sometimes see in their statements. As Dr Kamair wrote in his very elaborate article, the SPLM must find a way of presenting this objectives to the Sudanese people during the forthcoming election and referendum.
As the SPLM electoral college prepare to nominate the party candidates possibly next week, I hope they factor that in their selection. I already presented my opinion in my August 22, 2009 article, “SPLM should nominate Gov. Malik Agar as its 2010 candidate”.
Out of repect, just small correction to the name; Elwathig Kameir. Thanks.
I would like to thank Yong Deng for posting his cogent and thought provoking article and for bringing my attention to Dr. Elwathig Kameir’s commentary. I would also like to add that from my perspective, as an outsider, it also seems to me that very little, if not nothing, has changed in Sudan since the signing of the CPA.
Mr. Deng’s asserts that many of the political problems in Sudan are cultural conflicts rooted in religious ideology. These assertions echo in the halls of debate around the world. And many people in the global community, in addition to wondering where there will be a unified Sudan or separate Sudans; wonder who will prevail within the NCP, those who wish to establish a new Islamic Sudan, or those who seek to establish a new secular Sudan?
And as the world watches to see if the CPA succeeds or fails, a great many individuals in the world community believe that Southerners have suffered discrimination in Sudan. This belief tends to put a greater responsibility on the NCP to see that the CPA succeeds. That and the fact that the NCP has far greater resources at its command.
The peace that was created by the SPLM and the NCP in 2005 was an accomplishment that everyone could be proud of. Long years of war were set aside and a real chance for a lasting peace was within the realm of possibility. But it seems to me that the CPA was created through a “rushed†process, and for that reason, like a hastily built ship it has sprung many leaks upon encountering rough waters. Now, all Sudan is at sea facing a rising wind in rough waters in a ship is in peril of sinking, taking down with it the prospects of a new Sudan and even peace itself.
The CPA was crafted in a fashion that took too little attention of the imbalance of power between the NCP and the SPLM, and I believe therein lies one of its faults. The NCP has many more cards in its hand than does the SPLM. Those who helped to negotiate the CPA had to have known that either side would play all of the cards that they are dealt. And given the imbalance of powers arising from the structure of the CPA, the consortium of donor countries and IGAD should have built into the process more tools and mechanisms for offsetting that imbalance – at least for the purposes of moving towards the 2011 Referendum. The NCP should not be criticized for taking advantage of its greater strength and the SPLM should not be disparaged for balking when the NCP takes advantage of its power. What is important now is to keep the ship afloat.
In order to forestall the sinking of the CPA and the drowning the hopes of a peaceful future, the parties have to engage in some rather significant patchwork. This patchwork needs to be applied not only to the crises that crop up from time to time, but also to the CPA process itself. There are systemic problems with the CPA and there is nothing that says that it cannot be improved, even at this date. Keeping this ship afloat is the responsibility of both the NCP and the SPLM.
One case in point regarding the systemic problems with the CPA raises the following question: Is it the case that the question of whether Sudan would be a secular or Islamist state was merely “kicked down the roadâ€? If that is a question that was to be decided at “a later date,†we must now realize that there are not too many “later dates†left in this process. I do not know if Souad T. Ali’s new book: A Religion, Not a State, which is an analysis of Ali’Abd al Raziq’s Islamic justification of political secularism in the latter’s book “Al-Islam wa UsÅ«l al-Hukm: Bahth fi al-Khilafa wa-al-Hukumah fi al-Islam†was timed to enter into the current debate in Sudan; but it is a strong coincidence that a Sudanese writer should bring this book forward at this time. Being neither Sudanese, nor a Muslim, nor fluent in Arabic, I am not qualified to enter into this debate, but there are enough brilliant and scholarly minds with the qualifications to discuss and debate this matter. The big questions are: “can a unified Sudan be a secular state?†and/or “Can an Islamist state exist within a unified Sudan?â€
Mr. Deng indicates that Dr. Nafie Ali Nafie threatened war if the SPLM insisted on a secular state. But it is my understanding that when Dr. Nafie Ali Nafie spoke at the South-to-South-Dialogue Conference in November of 2009 he said that the NCP would respect the Southerners choice in the Referendum. http://sudanwatch.blogspot.com/2009/11/nafie-ali-nafie-ncp-will-respect.html. Granted, saying that the NCP would respect the Southerners choice in the Referendum is not the same as saying that the NCP is ready at this point to agree to accept the Unified Sudan as a secular state. But I believe that there is a seed of hope for compromise in his November statement, even though the fear that Sudan could return to a state of war is a very real one.
I believe that Mr. Deng is absolutely correct when he states that the South Sudanese people do not want another war. But the options may be greater than a secular Sudan on one hand or war on the other. The options may be greater than a secular Sudan on one hand or a separate South Sudan on the other. I believe that no one in Sudan (particularly in the South) will accept the status quo, but separation may not be the only alternative to the status quo.
It seems that a way must be found to make many significant changes, while leaving many significant things in place. More cards must be dealt to the South, while allowing the North to maintain an acceptable hand. New ways of thinking need to be brought to bear on these thorny problems. Perhaps it may seem that I am suggesting the impossible, but I believe in the indomitability of the human spirit and I believe in the strong desire within most human beings for peace. I am sure that the people of Sudan are weary of searching for a way through this seemingly intractable difficulty, but a peaceful Sudan, (unified or separated) is a goal that is worth the continued effort.
If the people of Sudan believe that a unified Sudan is best for all, I believe that the best solution for such a path can be found. If the people of Sudan believe that a separate Southern Sudan is best for all, I believe that the best solution for that path can be found. Dr. Elwathig Kameir’s commentary is worth considering, not only for the SPLM, but for all Sudanese and that for all Sudanese there is an “urgent need for diligent study, painstaking research, and meaningful dialogue on the real dimensions of two options: unity and separation, and the implications of each of them.â€
Oscar H. Blayton,
Firstly, in Sudan, there is a Government of National Unity. There are parties who are stakeholders in the Government of National Unity who have negotiated their share, stake, and roles in this Government of National Unity. Failure to acknowledge or recognize this constitutes a number of things: (1) failure of the GNU to package, market, and sell this ‘brothers-in-arms’ resolution to the civil war conflict after the signing of the CPA in Nairobi, (2) failure of the international community, intelligentsia, and academia to willingly support and recognize this fact, and (3) unresolved bitterness amongst Sudanese parities with the NCP post-CPA. It does not help either that Sudan is branded a state that sponsors terrorism and is treated like a rabid dog (rather than a sinking ship) in a community of African nations. There seems to be a half-hearted approval of the CPA by the international community. One might even say that there seems to be concerted effort to be abhorrently critical of the CPA as well as the tending to its provisions. My suspicions are that very few parties (international and domestic) are really interested in a peaceful Sudan, for they make claims on passionate rather than moderate and reasoned grounds. Sadly, what you fail to recognize is that the CPA did one crucial thing for us Sudanese. It stopped a bloody war. The NCP and SPLA should be commended for this. The intentions behind the CPA were noble. The follow-up has been somewhat disappointing. But the NCP and SPLM are stakeholders of the GNU. They must resolve their disputes in the democratic fashion that they have agreed to in this transitional government.
Secondly, you have to understand, that we Sudanese must contend with our pool of religious conservatives and recognize them as a legitimate fraction of the population. We all have our competing visions of Sudan. However, even we who are interested in a secular vision cannot eliminate the few nonsecularists by force or subjugate them through political wrangling. The On the other side, the NCP has also acknowledged this bitter truth by turning away from its ideological nonsecular Sudan movement. They have given me enough room to believe that they too (at least in the uppermost echelons of the NCP) would like to reconcile their differences for the fatigue of ruling a divided country has dawned in on them and made something abundantly clear to them: they must negotiate and gradually introduce a more democratic process or else face a recurrent wave of destabilizing oppositional challenges. They are finished and they themselves have shelved their Islamic-project. Democracy is a necessity for peaceful cohabitation. It is not something that is enforced or introduced by force.
Thirdly, I have a criticism of your quote “More cards must be dealt to the South, while allowing the North to maintain an acceptable hand.” We Sudanese cannot substitute one tyranny of nonrepresentational asymmetric rule for another. Southerners constitute a maximum of 9.5 million in a land of 42 million. You cannot have one party (the SPLM), who’s movement has shifted from representing a national movement to a regional one, rule the entire nation. This is a flawed suggestion.
Lastly, as a non-Sudanese non-arabic speaker, you might benefit by asking Sudanese whether this question of “whether Sudan would be a secular or Islamist state” is even a dominant or alive one in the halls of Parliament or the Executive cabinet, let alone the minds of ordinary Sudanese. Even amongst religious and elite Sudanese, most are very aware that Sharia or its interpretations are a thing of the past. The NCP, the main root of this early-90s ideology, has largely abandoned this nonsecular-Sudan movement. The fallout between Turabi and Bashir was both political and ideological. Many of Turabi’s former disciples have defected to Bashir’s camp. The recent Lubna-trouser episode is a reminder that this Islamic security apparatus has no basis towards any vision of a Sharia-guided Sudan. It is exactly what I called it: a security apparatus. Even though the legal and judicial system still enforce a so called Old Sudan Sharia-based constitutional interpretation, the majority-ruling party is using this as a tool of mass-movement control, and has already received the backlash of criticism from a two decade ideologically brainwashed Northerner community. The issue is largely one of mass-movement control, not one of state or social vision. Give some credit where it appears. There is resilience amongst Sudanese. There exists room for dialog, although many would have it that reconciliation is impossible with the South or amongst a few quarrelsome Northerners.
At its very core, this government cannot survive. The question therefore is: should we ensure its terminal destruction? Should we destabalize Sudan to the point whereby we end up demonizing another misguided ruler in the far future? Sudan has had a bout of coup d’etat after coup d’etat. Is this the recommended medicine? What do we all really want here? That’s food for thought.
I submit the following: unity might not be attractive, but reconciliation is absolutely non-negotiable. It must be accomplished. The division of the nation is a forgone conclusion. Any so called “debate” is a waste of precious time. So I would like to invite all opposition members or members of the foreign community on this forum to recognize that what is at stake here is not a united Sudan… not a secular Sudan… but a peaceful Sudan (and soon to be new Southern Sudan). It is too late to talk about issues of unity. There are too many forces at work and there is a lot of personal interests driving us to this point. What needs to be carved up is the beginnings of a reconciliatory mindset. The GNU will not initiate this. It is up to every concerned party and Sudanese citizen to adopt this attitude. We cannot have a 100-year war.
-Jamal
Thank you for your comments Jamal.
My friends from both the North and the South who now serve in the Government of National Unity have tried hard to make the CPA work, but I think that the effort has been more than one of packaging and marketing the CPA. I believe that real attempts at establishing an enduring unity government have been made.
I do agree with you that the international community has not been as supportive of the CPA as they could have been. And I certain agree that there are unresolved bitterness lingering from the long conflict and civil war. It is true that Sudan being branded as a state that sponsors terrorism is problematic (and in my opinion inaccurate, given the fact that the U.S. and other Western governments have long engaged in terrorism – witness the “Shock and Awe†campaign of the Iraq war). But my analogy of Sudan as a sinking ship was in reference to the possible failure of the CPA to be a vehicle by which peace could be maintained in the long run.
I also agree with your postulation that there may be international and domestic parties that are not interested in a peaceful Sudan.
I must say, however, that I do recognize that the CPA ended a long and bloody war; and I thought that my statement that: “Long years of war were set aside†acknowledged that. But I apologize if I was unclear in that reference.
With regard to your second point, I believe that both the secularist and the nonsecularists need to be accommodated. I am unable to put forward a means by which this can be done at this time, but I believe that it can be done with good faith negotiations.
Your third point makes me unclear as to whether you understood what I was trying to say in regard to the hands that were dealt to the NCP and the SPLM. I was trying to suggest that the CPA should have taken into account that the North was entering into the process with more resources and more control of resources than the South. I believe that this imbalance has been on of the impediments to greater process in the move towards preparing for a fair and meaningful Referendum.
By no means do I believe that the SPLM should be able to “rule the entire nation†as you put it. But I believe that the CPA has been put the SPLM in a position where it is difficult for them to negotiate effectively with the NCP on difficult issues. And this imbalance could lead to some important issues not being truly resolved and flaring up later and being the catalyst for violence.
On your last point, my discourse regarding Sudan would be a secular or Islamist state was in response to Yong Deng’s reference to a statement by Dr. Nafie Ali Nafie. If it is truly the case that there is no question but that Sudan will be a secular state, then I need not have raised that point. However, if there are segments of the NCP or other parties that would like to see an Islamist North Sudan, or if there are individuals who still believe that all of Sudan can be an Islamist state (an eventuality which I doubt) then discussions need to take this into account in an attempt to resolve any differences.
I too believe that Sudan is undergoing change, and whatever exists after the 2011 Referendum, it will not be Sudan the way it was. And at the end of the day, whatever the new Sudan, or new Sudans look like, reconciliation will be the most important task at hand for the government(s) and people of Sudan
– Oscar
“Perhaps it may seem that I am suggesting the impossible, but I believe in the indomitability of the human spirit and I believe in the strong desire within most human beings for peace…. If the people of Sudan believe that a unified Sudan is best for all, I believe that the best solution for such a path can be found. If the people of Sudan believe that a separate Southern Sudan is best for all, I believe that the best solution for that path can be found.” -Oscar H. Blayton
My apologies. Your points are well-taken. Many thanks.
-Jamal
Dear Yong Deng
Are you sure it was Dr. Nafie Ali Nafie and not someone else who said “If the SPLM insists……”?
Are you sure that the figure is fifty thousand and not forty thousand?
Do you really think that the NCP can actually abrogate the CPA,and reignite the war,or is it part of the mobilization of more international leverage?
Is the SPLM/A going into the elections as national political party with a national agenda, or as the late Dr Garang (may God have Mercy on his Soul), said, a fossilized regional sub-species?
Will the referendum in the South be free and fair and the GOSS, i.e. the SPLM/A is banning some political parties?
Should we, as you intimate, act out of despair or should we endure, and persevere until we find out what is best for the people?
Dear Friends
Could it be that we really need more time in the Sudan, that we may consider postponing the elections, extending the transitional period stipulated in the CPA, to give ourselves and our friends in the International Community, the time to close the gaps and find our way?
Dear David,
I am in total agreement with you that the remaining time to the elections seems to be too short to accommodate and reconcile all the critical outstanding issues that tend to surface and intensify by the hour. I am referring to the peace in Darfur, the Darfur–South borders, the new calls of the Darfurians for “self-determination†, the claims of the manipulation of the elections registrations, the concerns over free and transparent elections and referendum in both the North and the South, the political freedoms in the South, the escalating violence in the South, and the long list of what-will-happen-to this-in-case-of- separation’ unanswered questions.
The prospects are really gloomy. Both the leaders of the GoNS and the GoSS alike failed to show us real seriousness and commitments in dealing with the life and death issue of Sudan. The dilemma of the Sudan is that its leaders are hopelessly in eternal and blind pursuit of power, irrationally wishful that “bad things may not happen†and keep playing the same old games of buying time through the politics of reactions while determined not to change their underlying agenda.
I do not deny, however, provided that there is a strong “good†political will from all parties, and there is genuine realization of how grave and severe the situation is, I guess postponing the elections could be the best option to give us time to handle these issues; otherwise, we are just going to be calling for a slowdown of the fast advance of Sudan to the edge of the cliff and the bottomless dark pit.
David,
To answer some of your questions, first, I am sure Dr Nafie Ali Nafie made that threat. That more martyrs are ready to give their lives to preserve the Islamic status of the Sudan. I may not be sure if someone else in the NCP repeat the same threat. The figure I heard and read was 50 thousand. Maybe it is 40 thousand as you put it, I cannot bet on that.
Second, there is a reasonable evidence supporting my belief and that of many South Sudanese that the NCP does not want to implement all the CPA provisions. For instance, the borders are not demarcated. Why do you think NCP still support and finance the LRA? What is the strategic importance of LRA to SAF security?…..and many more.
Third, the referendum has to be free and fair both in the North and South if there is to be peace in Sudan. The people of South Sudan will not accept having their votes rigged.
Fourth, I am being realistic about the situation of the people of South Sudan. They have persevered and suffered for the last 54 years. There is no change in sight for the foreseeable future except wars and destruction. I don’t think they will vote to continue that suffering.
The suggestion that the CPA can be renegotiated to extend the interim period may be right but I don’t think whether the parties will accept it at this moment.