As of the writing of this article, the ruling party of semi-autonomous South Sudan, the Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Front, has pulled out of the scheduled April 11 multi-party election in Sudan and called for a boycott along with some northern opposition groups. Presently, U.S. envoy to Sudan Scott Gration is attempting mediation efforts to save the election process and to address the concerns raised by the SPLM of a rigged process.
|
|
Even before the pullout of the SPLM, the April 11 elections in Sudan promised to be some of the most complicated in the world. In addition to being the first multi-party elections in Sudan in 20 years, the elections precede a January 11, 2011, referendum on independence for the southern part of the country. Both elections result from the 2005 Naivasha Agreement, which ended Sudan’s 22-year-long civil war.
The main players in the election campaign are the northern-based and currently ruling National Congress Party, led by Omar Al-Bashir; the main opposition being the SPLM, based in the south and led by Yasir Arman. Bashir also faces a challenge from Sadiq Al-Mahdi, the leader of Sudan ousted by Bashir in 1989, who is also a descendent of Muhammad Ahmed Al-Mahdi, who defeated British colonialism in Sudan in the late 19th century.
Other than the presidency, the election is supposed to determine the national assembly, state governors, state assemblies, the president of the partially autonomous south, and the southern assembly. This means that if the elections go forward, there will be eight ballots in the north and 12 in the south.
Unity versus secession
The NCP has campaigned primarily on the issue of unity. President Bashir has campaigned heavily in Darfur, signing peace agreements with the two most prominent rebel groups and renewing ties with the government of Chad, whose proxy war with Sudan helped fuel the conflicts in Darfur. Bashir is under indictment by the sham International Criminal Court, and a victory by the NCP in this election would be a strong statement of legitimacy undermining the charges leveled by the ICC.
For the SPLM, the real issue is independence. The president of South Sudan, Salva Kiir, told an African summit in March that the January 2011 referendum on self-determination for South Sudan was more important than the national elections this year. For the SPLM, the goal of the 2011 referendum is to gain independence, which they failed to accomplish during the civil war.
The SPLM’s primary grievance is the 50/50 oil-sharing deal agreed to in 2005. The major oil-producing area of Sudan is in Abyei, which sits on the north/south border and is claimed by both sides. Oil revenues are crucial for the South Sudan government and currently make up 98 percent of its revenues. Despite this income, there are no paved roads nor concrete buildings, even in the capital of Juba. Most jobs are either “do-nothing” patronage jobs or employment with humanitarian NGOs. Farmers in South Sudan use mostly hoes to till their land. In other words, southern Sudan lacks even the most basic infrastructure and economy.
The SPLM was backed by many imperialist countries during the civil war. Why did Western governments support the SPLM in a civil war against the NCP and President Bashir? At least one explanation lies with his steadfast support for the Palestinian resistance. Bashir recently stated in an interview with Der Spiegel: “We support Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s legitimate struggle against the Israeli occupation and the resistance against the American invaders in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Paradoxically, Sudanese intelligence under Bashir has shared information with American intelligence services despite having no official diplomatic relations and an antagonistic relationship as exemplified by U.S. support for the SPLM.
If the SPLM re-entered the race and won, it would certainly create a government that would be very friendly to the West as well as to close U.S. allies in the region such as Kenya. However, it does not appear that the United States is interested in backing the SPLM’s boycott call, instead sending envoy Gration to save the election process. It is clear that the political struggle inside Sudan is fluid and very volatile. Complex negotiations between various parties and outside mediators make predictions complicated. Both the April elections and 2011 referendum could be in jeopardy, or go off as planned, and at any time the civil war could be renewed.
Bashir is more likely to be re-elected now that the SPLM has pulled out, making it almost a given the south will secede. However a second round of voting could take place if Bashir does not win outright, with his most likely opponent being Sadiq Al-Mahdi. A new government could very easily take a more conciliatory approach towards the SPLM, and look to improve upon the formulas laid out in the 2005 peace agreement.
It is also not clear whether the SPLM will pull out of the elections for good. The leadership of the SPLM seems to be divided on the issue, as previous statements by the NCP suggest the 2011 referendum could be endangered if the April elections are disrupted, potentially trashing the 2005 agreement that ended the civil war.
Additionally, the referendum process itself could very likely lead to violence over the Abyei region. It is possible that SPLM insistence on independence at all costs could alienate Western countries more interested in stability, the prerequisite to money-making, than disruptive war. For this reason it is not out of the question that the United States, which does not recognize the ICC, could attempt a rapprochement with Bashir and the NCP.
Either way, anti-imperialist people in the United States should stand against outside interference in Sudan’s internal affairs and elections. Hands off Sudan!
