Nuba Vision

Volume 1, Issue 4, June 2002

Sudan's Future: a choice between Federation and Confederation

Sudan’s peace process has gained some momentum following the US peace proposal initiated by former senator John Danforth, President Bush’s Special Envoy for Peace in Sudan. John Danforth laid down four action proposals for peace and he chose the Nuba Mountains as test case for peace building. One of the outcomes of this initiative is the six-month cease-fire agreement for the Nuba Mountains which was singed in Burgenstock on 19th January. This allowed humanitarian aid delivery into the Nuba Mountains after a decade of access denial to the area. It is hoped that this cease-fire agreement could be extended to other areas of conflict so that a comprehensive peace process could begin.

Over the past ten years several initiatives have sought to end the conflict, starting with in Abuja in Nigeria 1992, then followed by Inter-Governmental Authority and Development (IGAD) in 1994 and an Egyptian/Libyan initiative in 1998. Yet all have failed to achieve peace for Sudan. However, the recent American involvement in search for peace in Sudan has brought some hope, particularly following the Swiss Cease-fire Agreement for the Nuba Mountains. We believe if this agreement is extended to include other areas of conflict then the chance to reaching a peace settlement could not be too far.

In addition to the American efforts, the British Government has also become involved, and appointed a former Ambassador, Alan Goulty, as Special Representative for Peace in Sudan. There are also intensive diplomatic efforts and activities by other European countries such as Norway, Switzerland as well as by several African countries and one hopes that all these efforts can materialise into a just and lasting peace for our country.

But what kind of peaceful solution are we contemplating? We believe that peace cannot be built on injustice just to satisfy current international concerns. For a genuine peace we need to address some of the fundamental issues that have divided the Sudanese people for generations.

Sudan is the largest state in Africa and a country of tremendous diversity in terms of religion, ethnicity, culture and languages. In any rational nation this would be a source of pride, but for the rulers in Khartoum the fact that the majority of Sudanese are not pre Arab appears to be a source of deep shame. In order to accommodate these diversities one needs to meet the aspirations and the demands of all these people. Not a simple matter. The Sudanese people first of all need to examine and find remedies to the underlying root causes to the conflict that has divided them for so long.

One of the remedies for such a large country is that it needs restructuring and above all a genuine constitution which will embrace all the Sudanese regardless of their culture, language, religion or ethnic origin. In addition there is a need for devolution of power and the exercise of self-determination which are essential prerequisites to preserving the unity of the country.

The governments that ruled Sudan since independence in 1956 have tried all various forms of governance including military dictatorship and Westminster style democracy, but all failed dismally, because power has always remained with central government, despite promises of decentralisation and federation. This obviously is due to the luck of a decentralised constitution expressing the national consensus, desires and aspirations of all people of the Sudan. If unity is to be achieved for Sudan there is a genuine need for a unitary constitution tailored to suit a democratic environment.

More importantly, this unitary constitution needs to enshrine the ideals and aspirations of all our people. It is therefore necessary to have a devolution of power from the centre to the regions to avoid marginalisation of the peripheries as it has been in the past. This is the best way to ensure that the regions obtain their share of power and equitable share of economic development and wealth of the nation.

Now there is a bright light at the end of the tunnel which is a positive signal for peace, and of course this will depend entirely on the trust and the sincerity of the warring parties.

However, before peace comes the Sudanese politicians need to learn from the bad experiences of the past, in particular from the last two interim arrangement periods of 1965 and 1985. Before we get into a referendum we need to established a well defined unitary constitution which should include a strong federal system of governance which should be independent from the state government except for foreign affairs, currency, army and security. Because such a federal system is the only one that is sufficiently workable that can hold our diverse country together. In this there is a very strong guarantees on the delegation of powers to federal states. For example, large countries such as India, United States of America and Germany have all adopted federal systems for government giving much power to federal states which proven to be workable, because the federal structure of the constitution guarantees authority to the states.

It is important for Sudan to have a system for division of power between federal and state governments. Usually a strong federalism is based on reduced central powers except in case of national army, external security, currency and foreign affairs which should be left to the central governments. This will be the only important mean for providing greater self-rule for Sudanese in all parts of the country. For an effective Federal system one needs to restructure the country into eleven states and these should be the nine provinces created by British and plus two new provinces which are Nuba Mountains Province which was amalgamated in 1929 to Kordofan Province and Ingessena Hills Province to be created.

The Federation which the present government has adopted recently for Sudan is not an ideal federation that can address the need for a real devolution of power. The present government has created 26 federal states which definitely need huge resources to run besides the fact that all the powers still remain with the federal government, namely with the President who has the right to appoint state governors and the power to dismiss them.

Finally, the current proposed solution of one country with two self-governing systems definitely will not be an ideal outcome to the complex problem of the diversity of the country. One of the problems which such system will face is the basic issue of the constitution. Is the country going to have two constitutions? What will be the situation of the two million Southerners residing in the north and the same apply to northerners living in South. In addition, what will be the solution for the marginalised people of the north Sudan, who resorted to the armed struggle for more that 17 years, fighting for justice and freedom? What will be the situation of the nomads who seasonally travel between north and south for grazing? These are difficult questions which need answers before we think of adopting such a solution for our country.

I believe a workable solution in this case is a strong federation. A genuine federalism will take into account all these problems including the demand for internal self-determination and administrative autonomy for the marginalised people in the country in a similar manner to that adopted elsewhere, in particular in Ethiopia. I believe this is the best option for Sudan and for the unity of our country. Most Nuba are staunchly unionist and are thus calling for self-determination within a united Sudan.

SULEIMAN MUSA RAHHAL