The viability of the two Sudan, South and the North

Conditions never better the achievable political structure when system acts against the wills of the aspirers for a better system.   It only increases and intensifies the jeopardy to the system and so comes restlessness of the State.   This is symbolic framework of a failed system in Sudan.   But the irony in relative to question is should a viable south Sudan be seen before or after twelve months period? When I came across this title “ Can south Sudan be a viable state?” on A BBC headline NEWS JANUARY 12, 2010, I smiled and giggled for I know the political arena of the Sudan and all its trends.   On a daily basis I do follow daily events to which most of them are uncondensed and yet with no clarity, they represent the illogicality of forming a solid structure leading Sudan to be what it is today.   Yet, with utmost atmosphere these things are part of ongoing circumstances ignited by the wake of ideologies before any clashing of the ideologies is seen surfacing.   With no doubt, the considered ideologies as the engines of the liberation struggle come to play in favour of the parties’ interest.   The main fuel of the engines (to the south, democratic rule and right of the people, and to the north charia law) was not so complex, but has developed a strong base in the hearts of the people who opposed the arrogant people who assumed superiority than the others.  

Moreover, Sudan is one and is more diverse fitting the popular ideologies to clashes.   For lack of acknowledgement, and less regard to living a communal life, the protagonists (Jellaba) in such a dull ideology thought that primitiveness has no end, and that their hidden secret would never be uncovered.   As time goes by, the formation of ideologies dating back to 1962 as the birth of anya nya I intensely remain the continuation of the birth of the many ideologies (Anya nya II, and the SPLM/A).   This is the foundation of the bridges which have never had connection.   The protagonists (Jellaba) aspire deep with no sense of judging what should be considered a legitimate aspiration for all, they; nevertheless, segregate and keep such form of humility without knowing the building block which would later become these ideologies (Democratic rule, freedom of the southern people, and the south Sudan independent movement ‘Pioneered by Dr. Machar’ that is based on what to be the independent state).   A gap that has never closed since the first rebellion remains the power engine of the proxy ideologies that clashes.   What implicates the clashes of ideologies which were brought to being through cultural differences, religious differences, racial segregation, and language differences was the wider gap created by the Jellaba between yellow and green regions (south & north).   The creation of this gap should have been closed if Jellaba had known the perplexity of today’s political change to convince the destitute about togetherness and living a life in one country, the Sudan.   Today is too late to close this gap.

Even if some would view these points less important and unrealistic reasons, complication of the situation was actually facilitated by these above mentioned words.   As a matter of fact, it is to be recalled that Sudan operates as a sovereign state since after the end of British colonial rule in 1956 where the today’s gap could have been closed.   Arabs dominated regime says unity is number one choice which mean to exploit the rich south Sudan and that people would still have wider gap economically.   This means the first class southern Sudanese elites would fit the second class in the entire Sudan so that the first class Arabs in the north would still rank first economically.   This is the reason Jellaba favour the notion of a united Sudan for.   Can this be favoured as great move southerners?

If not clear, another reason would be the current political sidelining of the northern regime against its marginalized regions or other areas.    One can deny the feasibility of Sudan political differences, but it should be northern individual to say no such complications in the expense of the current ideological differences.   However, the significant differences should have been placed over racial lines and political segregation where Arab Sudanese remain to be that way because they consider the “southerners as slaves” (Mohamed suliman) and that they should never give up in persisting with hectic behaviour against southerners and other marginalized people in this meantime.   These important reasons alone shrink the diversity Sudan where all races and religion should have been represented with equality and equity, and discourage the two viable Sudan, come 2011 referenda.  

As brought forth by the reporters of the BBC, it is in fact a wonderful time to question these significant questions of unity and separation, to be able to find how reliable they should be in the following twelve months.   But the thing is those who put more analyses to occurring circumstances in Sudan have met the answer long before any of these questions is asked.   They know in their heart that there is no united Sudan, period.   But question remain to how a viable state such as young south Sudan should be run, not will it be a viable state?

On the basis of the political change, the perception of the black African Sudanese for a united Sudan fad away during the first bullet fired.   The grudges between the two opponents grow rapidly.   There were; nonetheless, varieties of strong barriers leading to caring the development processes on unequal basis.   Building the north Sudan in form of neglect to the South Sudan accelerates the conflict to its peak scale where the conflicting issues remain none resolvable.    This fits the category of a divided county.  

To nail out the point, beginning with the title that question the viability of the south Sudan and “the two states,” I would say division of the Sudan has long been encouraged on the basis of the simultaneously restricted development and political growth of the black African Sudanese by their counterpart the Arabs dominated north.  

Some typical reasons that bear the truth of the great division of the two Sudan to come are as follow:  

First, after the rectification of the government bodies in 1972, southerners and the other marginalized people were underrepresented.   They were denied access to laddering, to successfully obtain the political growth like most other northern Arab politicians in all levels of government.  

Second, access to education was denied, and people were enslaved to the point they had become unhappy for their counter-Arab individuals whom they view equal with them.   Scholarships were distributed on racial lines and placed neglect and ignorant attitude to non-Arab children in the country.   Services distributions were made unequal for all, some were favoured and others remained unfavourably given their shares.

Third, developments were carried out through neglect and social indulgent or nothing as such at all.   The southern part and other marginalized areas faced this neglect and developmental isolation by the successive regime of the Arabs dominated north of the country.   Lack of infrastructure rampant and the beating of drums continue for southerners outright the nationwide humility imposed upon by their foe.   What a regime?

Fourth, extermination of the politicians was the subject discourse in the mosques, and some other secret areas where politics is played by the likeminded Jellaba who perceived themselves superior and highly consider  Jellaba a civilized being which was nothing but a racial segregation like the apartheid in South Africa.  

Should the Arabs claim for a united Sudan in this regard or better for them to remain silent and leave the fate of separation and unity to the suffered people who undergone marginalization for so long to decide on their own?

I think Sudan had seen this invisible great division.   A division that had not favoured togetherness has long been witnessed through these different occasions.   I can refer back once again to 1972 agreement which could have been regarded fake agreement because there was nothing special in it.   It only implicates the current political struggle causing much destruction than to cut short and embraced the today’s sense of a united Sudan if function and structural forms were fulfilled once after the agreement.   Are we one really, Sudanese?   What happen was that undervaluing of the southern people had come to play and so humility had to occur fitting southerners against the northerner Arab elites for another time.   With the introduction of the mischievous rule, come the charia law in 1989, and that contributes to the inception/continuation of the SPLM/A which was the reason for southerners to take up arms against the oblivious regime that lives in ignorance and dull ideology favouring only Arabization in a land that combines different ethnic backgrounds.

The hardest war was fought for 21 years to the extent that lives were lost on both sides.   None would ever feel happy about this unjustified condition of the Jellaba that had enormously remained extreme, but as a matter of fact, struggle is what it is to take, given the circumstance.   It is in no way that southerners could not opt for war, for there was no ultimate reason to resort to war.   If agreement favours a united Sudan, it should have been met with the 1972 agreement.   But, because Jellaba considers deception as a formal political growth, they never hold on to their signature, and that disruption had to take part every now and then.    In this, where is the unity Arabs always cry for?

In 2005, the comprehensive peace agreement (CPA) was signed.   Attended by dignitaries from across the globe, the Arab-led regime called national congress party (NCP) dishonoured the demands and protocols that could contribute in reconciling the long stand differences between the warring parties that have clashing ideologies (one that favour charia law and the one that favour democratic rule).   The worst case scenario that comes to play is unattractiveness of the development as agreed upon, lack of wealthy sharing, and lack of political transparency which is why south and the north will have to be divided and remain separate states without resistant from the people that underwent such a hardship and sorrowful condition.

For those who question the viability of the south to become an independent country, of course, is true for them to ask.   The viability of the South Sudan is realistic for the following reasons.   It has big oil reserves throughout the land, it has good fertile soil that will enhance the growth of crops, it has all other minerals such as uranium, gold, and cooper, and it has everything a state can have, so why not stand on its own as a sovereign state and manages her own resources like most other states in Africa continent?

But for unity lovers, if the above mentioned points had been fulfilled by the northern regime, the aspiration of the people throughout the country could have remained together and so all spirits should favour unity of the Sudan or a united Sudan that is built on a common ground with viable objective.   But what happened in the first place should not be confused with short lived agreement that did not do anything in this current tough time, but to exploit the south Sudan resources.   Those things created a divided Sudan to my personal view based on how I understand Sudan politics.

 I like the quote “vote for unity and you will become a second class citizen, or vote for separation and you will be free,” said John Garang.   If that is so, I am more likely impressed by the ideology of separation and those who stood firm with it.   To become separatist means to stop dishonouring behaviour of the Arab regime-led government in the north Sudan.  

In conclusion, Sudan was already divided and so comes the finalization of this great division in time of referendum.   Whether you and I like it or not, there is no ultimate solution to stop all these garbage of Jallaba in the north than to separate.   However, southern Sudan would become a viable state no matter what it takes.   The land is rich in everything acquired by any county on the planet earth.   It has all necessary might it should for it to be a sovereign state.   So why should we boast for a united Sudan where our partner had been cheating us throughout all these years?

Nhial K. Wicleek lives in Canada.   He can be reached at [email protected]