The Sudanese general elections turned out to be a coup in more than one sense of the word, says Gamal Nkrumah Sometimes no one notices if the ruling party is up to its old tricks. At other times the discrepancies between reality and political proclamation are quite simply glaring. The image of Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) leader Salva Kiir, who confusingly doubles as Sudan's first vice-president and president of the autonomous region of Southern Sudan, shaking hands amicably yesterday before the cameras on the pan-Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera and other international media took many Sudanese by surprise. It's a confounding coup de foudre -- potentially a coup de grace -- for the Sudanese opposition. They proudly pronounced the election results "free and fair", pledging that they'll abide by whatever decision the National Electoral Commission (NEC) decrees. It was obvious from their knowing grins that a deal -- a palace coup -- has been cooked up with Washington's blessing. But criticisms continue to come thick and fast. "It is forgery, of course, done by the ruling party. They changed the boxes with already filled boxes. They brought them by government vehicles," Popular Congress Party (PCP) Abdallah Deng Nhial notes, describing the 11-15 April election as "scandalous". He cited problems with ink, ballot box seals and voter identification as "significant deficiencies". Names were printed in English and Arabic but confusingly not listed in the same order. The illiterate electorate understandably was baffled. The opposition claims that many Sudanese voters in several parts of the country including Darfur were unjustly disfranchised. Pre-electoral discretion has not been the overwhelming feature of the Sudanese elections. The SPLM might have lost ground in the north of the country because of the confusion of southerners voting in northern Sudan and in particular in the national capital Khartoum where an estimated two million displaced southern Sudanese reside. Nhial is Muslim, a southerner, but he is no Arab. Not all elections are equally significant. And Sudan's current poll is no exception. In some Arab countries the ruling parties are in no danger of losing their grip. So is Sudan exclusively Arab? The Sudanese political establishment was obliged to come up with a ruse to save their skin. "The competitive nature of the campaign was reduced by unequal resourcing and treatment by the authorities as well as boycotts and late withdrawals by opposition parties in the north," says Hatem Al-Sirr, the Democratic Unionist Party presidential candidate. "I reject the result of the elections and I will not recognise them," Al-Sirr adds "The United States regrets that Sudan's NEC didn't do more to prevent and address such problems prior to voting," the White House pontificated in a low-key statement which fell far short of its usual condemnation of elections it doesn't approve of. Until a few days ago, the outcome of the Sudanese election seemed obvious. Then came that well-known thorn in Washington's side, Jimmy Carter, pointing out that "It is obvious that the elections fell short of international standards". Carter conceded that he "observed important flaws" and that the Sudanese elections "lacked sufficient safeguards and transparency necessary to verify key steps and build confidence and trust in the process," Carter warned. The European Union's chief election monitor Veronique de Keyser declared that the Sudanese elections "did not reach international standards". A video showing election officials stuffing the ballot boxes proves the opposition claims that the vote was rigged. Several Sudanese observers were beaten up. "We'll not investigate anything that appears on the Internet," NEC head Al-Hadi Mohamed Ahmed defended the government's position. Whatever the outcome of the Sudanese elections, some sort of history will be made in the next few days -- not the long-waited democratic transformation and radical reform, but a more sinister scenario that will probably end Sudan as a single political entity. This is the grim consensus among opposition leaders of Sudan. Some general elections mark the end not only of governments but of historical eras as well. The 11- 15 April election signifies the end of neither. "There is no contest in the real sense of the word. There is a compromise that will seal the fate of Sudan. The deal is done," says Al-Sadig Al-Mahdi, leader of the Umma Party and the last democratically-elected Sudanese prime minister ousted in a military coup d'état in 1989 by the incumbent President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir. "The northern opposition realised all too late that Al-Bashir decided, with Washington's approval, to sell off the south for a pittance -- for commercial benefits and personal advantage," asserts Al-Mahdi. "The International Criminal Court charges against Al-Bashir will probably be shelved and the north will get a share of a newly independent south's oil through the existing pipeline for a definite period." This was the tricky trade-off. The only snag is that most southerners have yet to see the benefits of the new-found oil wealth. Southern opposition groups suspect the SPLM of pocketing the profits, profiteering from the deal with Al-Bashir. The deal between Al-Bashir and the SPLM is predicated on "self-determination for the south in the 2011 referendum and not on the current elections which are regarded as irrelevant. The Americans would prefer to see a non-Arab, non-Muslim oil-rich independent southern Sudan," Al-Mahdi concludes. He is insinuating perhaps that Western powers are completing the divide and rule work that did away with the Islamic state founded by Sadig's legendary grandfather. "This fraudulent election then is the ticket for the secession of the south. America prefers to deal directly with Christian and more secular south, making it free to openly declare the Muslim north an enemy pariah state." (see p.7)
