Sudan: Obstacles to establishing national consensus
Sudan, Politics, 12/29/1997

Since the June 1989 coup d'etat, Sudan has been torn by confrontation between the military regime and the opposition forces gathered within the National Democratic Alliance. Since independence 40 years ago, Sudan has not made a decisive political choice based on national consensus. This is manifest in the presence of two contending forces with an incompatible view of Sudan's present and future.

A study issued by the Al-Ahram center for political and strategic studies seeks to pinpoint the obstacles to the continuity of a pluralist / democratic system of government in Sudan.

Sudan's fate will be determined by the confrontation between the ruling regime and the National Democratic Alliance.

This confrontation may be perceived as a conflict between two
forces and ideologies, one of which has actually seized political power through the use of religious slogans and the coalition it has established with the military. In practice, it is authoritarian in nature, but also advocates a specific interpretation of Islam as a religion and method of government.

It has failed, however, to achieve a general consensus. The second force, the opposition advocates the overthrow of the ruling model, and presents, as the alternative, a pluralist paradigm that separates militant religious interpretations from the practice of government.

According to statements made by the National Democratic Alliance this model upholds values of citizenship, peace and neighborly relations between Sudan and the outside world.

Confrontation between two or more contending forces, each with its own ideology of government's role, has been a recurring phenomenon in Sudanese history since it achieved independence in 1956. Only the contending personalities, the focus and the intensity of the conflict have changed. The object of confrontation over the past four decades has remained virtually the same, a struggle between pluralism and freedom, on one hand, and authoritarian military single-party regimes, which suppressed pluralism in order to subjugate the nation through repression and violence, on the other hand.

A cyclical pattern may be detected : after an interval of pluralist semi-democratic government, a coup d'etat is usually orchestrated, followed by a groundswell of opposition that overthrows the military regime and establish a new pluralist system. Most often, however, mistakes and obstacles bring about the failure of the pluralist / democratic experience, and authoritarian military rule is established once again.

This cycle has occurred four times in Sudan's recent history: in 1964, 1969, 1985 and 1989.

In 1969, a year of popular revolution, the military government of Field-Marshall Aboud was toppled. In 1969, another military coup was carried out by president Jafar Numeri. Numeri ruled Sudan until he was overthrown by widespread popular uprisings, joined by military forces in March and April 1985. Four years elapsed, during which Sudan witnessed its third multi-party experience. Another coup d'etat, this one led by Omar Al-Bashir and supported by the Islamic National Front, again saddled Sudan with an autocratic single-party dictatorship.

This time the confrontation between Sudanese opposition forces and the regime in Khartoum seems to be the prelude to a process of sweeping change, albeit one with unpredictable repercussions.

This pattern begs the question why a pluralist / democratic system of government cannot be established on permanent, stable terms, nor backed by all political and social forces as well as the state, particularly the military establishment.

The three coups revealed the lengths to which military leaders are willing to go in their quest for power.

There leaders have consistently rebelled against civil authority, which governs according to laws and the constitution. One of the most crucial issues in this respect is the relations between the structure and performance of Sudanese parties, the relationship between the anti-democratic trend and the war in the South, the rebellions in the South, East and West, and the economic under-development which continues to plague Sudan.

Generally speaking, these problems are not restricted to Sudan. Here, however, they acquire a certain specificity as a result of racial, linguistic and religious heterogeneity. This heterogeneity has never been properly represented in peaceful terms, and has always presented a loophole facilitating foreign intervention Sudan, a situation which ultimately crippled the country's political stability and unity.

The present confrontation puts Sudan's future in the balance. It also places the question of stability in the horn of Africa as a whole at the top of regional priorities.

Previous Stories:
  Sudanese envoy delivers message to Iranian president   (12/24/1997)
  Sudanese foreign minister calls for a strong Egyptian role in Sudan   (12/18/1997)
  Sudanese governor calls for stopping deterioration of external relations   (12/3/1997)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search