Political manoeuvring among factions in both north and south Sudan is underway as the referendums on succession approach, says Asmaa El-Husseini The Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) seems to have extracted major concessions from the National Congress Party (NCP), its partner in government. Under intensive pressure from the southerners, the Sudanese parliament has passed two laws regulating the referendum on self-determination in the south, slated for 2011, and the referendum on the future of the oil-rich Abyei region. The southerners did everything they can to get the laws passed. They pulled their representatives from parliament. They marched in a demonstration held on Monday. Some southern leaders were taken to prison for several hours as a result, but the NCP eventually relented. The SPLM persuaded the NCP to bring the referendum on the south back to parliamentary debate, thus annulling an earlier attempt by the NCP to pass the law on the referendum in the absence of southern leaders. The southerners wanted two clauses changed. One was about the manner in which southerners living in the north would vote, and the other was about the conditions that should be met before holding the referendum. Now that the central government has approved a referendum for the oil-rich Abyei, future complications are to be expected. In particular, the Al-Masiriya tribes, which live in the region, see the referendum as an encroachment on their historical rights. Would the agreement on these two referendum laws make life easy for the central government, or will it usher in a new round of conflicts? Judging by the past, one cannot be optimistic. The two partners in government, the NCP and the SPLM, have known nothing but disputes for the past five years of their coalition rule. Now, with less than one year to go for the referendum on the south, a referendum that would determine the future of the entire country, the situation remains as fragile as ever. The insistence of the southerners on the two laws concerning the south and Abyei referendums is less than reassuring, at least from the point of view of the northern opposition parties. The northern opposition has sided with the SPLM of late, forming something that came to be known as the Juba alliance. But there is a reason to believe that this alliance is not going to last long. The SPLM has failed to oppose the national security law that the central government has passed of late, a law that the northern alliance was keen to block and still considers anathema for freedom in the country. Presidential advisor Ghazi Salaheddin believes that a deal has been reached between the SPLM and the NCP, one by which the NCP makes concessions to the southerners in return for the SPLM silence on the national security law. Should this be true, then it may be that the NCP and the SPLM have reached some understanding concerning the general elections scheduled for April 2010 and the referendum on the south, due in less than 12 months. It is unlikely, however, that the differences between the two partners in government are over. In the past, every deal reached between the NCP and the SPLM ended in anger and misgivings. And the number of unresolved issues facing both the northerners and the southerners is simply staggering. Take for example the matter of redrawing the borders. There are no conceivable borders of the Abyei region that would be satisfactory to all. Even a ruling from international arbitrators at The Hague has failed to alleviate the intensity of rival claims on the oil-rich region. Whenever the issue of borders comes up, expect complications to surface, for what is at issue is not just land, but a complex web of historical claims, tribal interests, and economic ambitions. Other issues are just as crucial. The status of northerners living in the south and southerners living in the north remains unclear in the case of secession. Tribal rivalries may flare up the moment any border issue is decided. Take notice of how the Arab tribe of Al-Masiriya rejected the referendum on Abyei, claiming that it detracts from its historical rights. Will the agreement between the NCP and the SPLM defuse hostilities in Sudan or take the conflict to another level? This is a hard question to answer at the moment. The NCP has certainly been humouring the SPLM so as to spite the northern opposition parties. But it is not clear what this policy would lead to. One thing that we should keep in mind is that the SPLM is governed by two major currents. One current wants secession and sees no point in getting involved in northern politics. The other seeks a united Sudan, but with a major shift in power within the country. As for the northern opposition, it is still hopelessly divided. Currently, each opposition party intends to field its own candidate in the presidential elections, instead of standing behind a consensus candidate. This division in the opposition's ranks is what gives the NCP the power to outmanoeuvre them at present. The way future alliances would emerge would have an impact not only on the outcome of the referendums, but on the shape of Sudan's map. But the signs one sees in Sudan's political scene are not reassuring. In the recent elections of the Sudanese Lawyers' Syndicate, the opposition parties accused the coalition of the NCP and its allies of rigging the vote. Similar charges are likely to be heard in the upcoming elections and referendums, opening the door to horrific scenarios such as the ones seen in Kenya, Zimbabwe and Iran.
