Peace and security in Sudan come at a price -- greater democracy. Will the key players pay the price, asks Gamal Nkrumah Click to view caption The do or die moment is quickly approaching for Sudan's Islamist political establishment. Pessimists say this is the beginning of the end for the regime of Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir. They claim that with the signing of the memorandum of understanding, officially called the Machakos Protocol, by the Sudanese government and the country's largest armed opposition group, the Sudan's People's Liberation Army (SPLA), the division of the country and the end of Al-Bashir's regime are imminent. Detractors of this agreement and the Machakos talks claim that it is only a matter of time before the process breaks down and the country will be divided along ethnic and religious lines. Optimists, though, say that this agreement will force Khartoum to democratise, politically liberalise and wholeheartedly adopt multi-party pluralism. Al-Bashir has conditionally lifted the ban on political parties which he imposed after assuming office in a military coup d'état in 1989. But, both northern and southern opposition groups are not entirely convinced of his dedication to the lifting of the ban. They believe it is a ploy to placate the United States. The key features of the 20 July Machakos Protocol were that the southern Sudanese could exercise their right to self- determination after a six-year period of semi-autonomous rule. After this six-year period a referendum will be held to decide on self-determination and the separation of religion and state in the southern third of the country. The Machakos talks are taking place under the auspices of the Inter-Governmental Authority for Development (IGAD), a regional organisation which groups seven East African countries, including Sudan. Last week, in the Eritrean capital of Asmara, there was qualified support for the Machakos process at the meeting of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), which is an umbrella organisation that covers opposition groups including the SPLA and other mainly northern Sudanese opposition parties. John Garang, leader of SPLA, is waiting expectantly to be awarded a high profile position by his people and the world for his role in the civil war, whether the outcome is good or bad. A position of grandeur and a favourable legacy in Sudan's annals of history may be out of reach for Garang without the close collaboration of his fellow opposition leaders in the north. To the chagrin of his NDA partners, Garang arrived three days late at Machakos. He largely allayed their fears about the partitioning of Sudan and acknowledged that a prerequisite for significant gains in ending the conflict was the participation of other political parties in the Machakos process. The SPLA leader is statesman-like and ambitious. But Garang has not yet plucked the plum of plums. The notion of a southern Sudanese Christian as president of a united, democratic and secular Sudan is not only novel, but downright unacceptable to some. While Christian presidents have been installed in predominantly Muslim African nations such as Senegal (Leopold Sedar Senghor), Tanzania (Julius Nyerere) and more recently Nigeria (Olusegun Obasanjo), few observers believe that such a situation could be possible in Sudan. The second round of the Machakos peace talks might not touch directly on the subject of a Christian president, but it should. By force of will, Washington made Machakos work. But Washington's view of a future Sudan is predicated on openness. Sudanese national security goes hand in hand with openness and political inclusion. If the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Sudan is to be preserved, Sudan must become a far more open society. However, recent moves by Al-Bashir suggest that creating an inclusive and open political environment in Sudan is easier said than done. "Al-Bashir has recently issued a presidential decree renewing for another year the detention of the former National Islamic Front (NIF) leader and Speaker of the Sudanese Parliament Hassan Al-Turabi. The professional associations and trade unions have staged a demonstration in Khartoum in support of a petition to end war and institute democratic laws," Farouk Abu Eissa, head of the Cairo-based Arab Lawyers Union and official spokesman for the NDA told Al-Ahram Weekly. Abu Eissa warned that if the signatories of the Machakos Protocol do not work diligently on instituting political pluralism, democracy, freedom of expression and association and a respect for human rights, then a popular uprising might be the end result. "Machakos is a good starting point. But it is full of loopholes and contradictions," warned Abu Eissa. He lamented that Washington seemed interested only in a cease-fire agreement, but not in the democratic transformation which tops the NDA's political agenda. Abu Eissa held talks on behalf of the NDA with US President George Bush's Special Envoy for Peace in Sudan Senator John Danforth in Cairo upon his return from Asmara. He is also in touch with US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Walter Kansteiner. He impressed upon the US officials that the other Sudanese (northern and southern) political forces must be taken into account. Washington cannot simply focus on the two main protagonists -- the SPLA and the Sudanese government. Moreover, Abu Eissa complained that the Arab dimension was completely absent. "Arab countries, and especially Egypt and Libya, must be included in the Sudanese peace talks," Abu Eissa stressed. Abu Eissa also pointed out that fellow NDA member John Garang must take into account the political realities of southern Sudan. "Garang is our friend and partner within the NDA, but he must not forget that he does not represent all the southern Sudanese. There are different southern Sudanese political forces that are not part of the SPLM constituency," Abu Eissa explained. SPLA officials concur. "Unity must prevail," Jurkouch Barach the Cairo-based SPLA representative for Egypt and the Middle East told the Weekly, "We in the SPLA are working hard to achieve Sudanese unity. The Sudanese government must prove that it is serious about peace. It must discard anything that divides the Sudanese people" Both sides in the Sudanese conflict must set aside preconceived notions of the border between the north and south and prepare to make concessions on the issue of oil revenues. The British colonial authority's so-called Closed District Policy, which was designed to accentuate the differences between northerners and southerners, still poisons the air between North and South in Sudan. The SPLA recognises the 1952 colonial borders under which the south includes the Nuba Mountains and the southern Blue Nile. However, before they exited Sudan in 1956, the British revised the border and incorporated these previously southern areas into the north. The Sudanese government only accepts the 1956 borders. Oil extraction and future revenue from mineral wealth further complicate the issue of the border. It is not clear how this contentious issue will be resolved.
