This article tacitly acknowledges the complex and volatile nature of events in Sudan as a state and a nation, if there is a nation to begin with. The crisis of legitimacy stems from lack of consensus on how Sudan could be governed by existing state institutions. The regime is bankrupt and has lost its moral authority, despite the bursts of nationalistic fervor or populist jubilation and charismatic arousal. More mystifying is the fact that there is hardly any meaningful discussion of policy options to position the country on the path of peace, democratization, consolidation of democracy, and yearning for democratic ideals.
As a result, the country is on the brink of major, catastrophic, and spectacular failure if not out right back to total civil war. The country is rolling from a failed state to a fierce state, as illustrated by the excessive power used against the opposition rallies, when different parties of Northern and Southern opposition groups resurrected themselves after years of repression to exercise their civic duty in peaceful demonstration. The government declared this an act against the state and trumped its own constitution to jail and punish the peaceful demonstrators.
On the local scale, the fierce state has to cover up its weakness through excessive use of coercion. The fierce nature of this failed state has been demonstrated many times, including the scorched-earth policy committed in Darfur, the most egregious violation of human rights in our modern history. Indeed, it was a tragic chapter that left scars on the moral character of Sudan as a nation. This oligarchical rule embedded with gerontocracy of ideas governing the country were believed to be more palatable to the country’s badly damaged military establishment, and they are defrauding the country’s national interest for the sake of their own protection. The NCP becomes the voice of doom for any meaningful policy discussion. Every serious discussion is labeled as “conspiracy by invisible powers who seek to destroy what is already decimated.
The government is neither serious about resolving the crisis of its nation nor will it allow others to chart a meaningful course of action to put an end to the blood bath in which, for the last 20 years, Sudan has lost most of its youth and squandered billions of dollars into the coffers of Chinese and Iranian arms dealers.
For example, it is shameful for a country like Sudan to spend more than $1.6 billion a year on its military establishment while it allocates about $50 million for primary and elementary education. Most shocking of all were the attempts of the government to build a military aircraft, where millions were poured into Iranian coffers to build a “toy aircraft that is a laughingstock for any intelligent mind. There is no justification for this outrageous project except that it is the priority of the governing elites, who are out of touch, in their quest for personal glory.
Moreover, the picture in Southern Sudan is gloomier than ever. Even secession would produce a failed state incapable of carrying the promise of its people. The government makes it difficult for Southerners to govern the newborn state in the South by fueling ethnic warfare and providing them with means of self-destruction. While they are deceiving the rest of the world by electoral charade, the country lacks the basic credible elements to conduct the fair elections that would lead to democratic transformation. In addition, the NCP lacks a moral and intellectual leadership to stir debate on issues vital to national interests, which have been left to the security apparatus – the real policymaker of the regime.
Today, under the current conditions, even if we solved the crisis of Darfur, Kurdofan would be ready to rise up and demand a comparable right, which would derail the Darfur peace, just as Darfur created an excuse for the government to undo some provisions of CPA. Confederation means one size fits all.
What is the key for the solution to Sudan’s ailments? The first and foremost issue to be addressed is “how to govern, not who will govern. How to govern is the basis of the problem of instability, wars, and oppression. It is time for the Sudanese people and the rest of the world to engineer a formula that will bring a lasting solution. We call here for a Confederation of Sudan as the key ingredient of the formula to save Sudan as a united Sudan.
In this proposed confederation, Sudan can be divided into sovereign states. The maximum number of these sovereign member states would be seven: Darfur, Northern, Eastern, Khartoum, Central, Kurdofan, and Southern Sudan – in case of voting for unity. By treaty, these states would delegate defense, international relations, and a common currency to common institutions, to coordinate their policies without constituting a new state on top of the member states. The states would form a council of the presidency and the chairship of the presidency would be rotated among the confederate states. This would be a voluntary union, and all decisions of national interest would be reached by consensus.
Once we solved the issue of how to govern through confederation, even Southern Sudan would be less tempted to ask for secession, because it would have a vital and strategic interest in remaining within the confederation. This formula would break the vicious cycle of allowing the elites, who live within a radius of 25 miles from Khartoum, to rule a nation so diverse and one-third the size of the United States. The emphasis on democratization, human rights, and peace in Sudan is very important, but we should start from the ultimate solution – confederation – and then work backwards to address the means of governing.
Dr. Hamid Eltgani Aliis Assistant Professor of Public Policy, School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo.
