Sudan's President Elect Omar Bashir       Photo courtesy

 

Elections as a fundamental or instrumental right

In analyzing election outcome and the prospects for democracy in Sudan, it is necessary to distinguish between ultimate goals and the necessary instruments for achieving them.  It would make sense for political parties in Sudan to distinguish between fundamental rights and instrumental rights.  “The right to vote, for instance, is an instrumental right designed to help us achieve the fundamental right of government by consent.  The right to a free press is also an instrumental right designed to help us achieve an open society and freedom of information” (Milton R. Konvitz, 2001).

Democracy in depth / Democracy in theory

By the same token, political parties can distinguish between democracy as means and democracy as goals.  The most fundamental of the goals of democracy are probably four in number.  Firstly, to make rulers accountable and answerable for their actions and policies.  Secondly, to make citizens effective participants in choosing rulers and  regulating their actions.  Thirdly, to make the society as open and the economy as transparent as possible; and fourthly, to make the social order fundamentally just and equitable to the greatest number possible.  Accountable rulers, actively participating citizens, an open society with a transparent economy, and social justice: those are the four fundamental ends of democracy (Roland N. Stromberg, 1996).

In order to achieve these goals, citizens must make their rulers more accountable. The U.S.A., for example, has chosen separation of powers and checks and balances; whilst the U.K., has chosen increased sovereignty of Parliament.  These are different ways to make the executive branch more accountable and answerable in its use of powers.

General governance in Sudan

One component of good governance is rule of law, specifically during elections. Again, in the U.S.A, the law is on the side of the open society (Lois G. Forer). On the other hand, in Sudan and much of the rest of Africa, the law of libel can be used to stop the flow of information, rather than facilitate it.  Libel law in Sudan can be more an ally of censorship than a partner of an open society. 

In Sudan, the free press is compromised by the politics of the state parties in both the North and the South.  Since the CPA, state parties in the South and the North have not been able to transform themselves towards democratic behaviour with respect to the political views of other parties. The SPLM party restricts the campaigning of other parties in the South through arrest, harassment, and detention with no legal grounds. Also, South Sudan television, controlled by the Government of South Sudan (GoSS), is mandated not to cover non-SPLM political rallies. In March 2010, the SPLM-DC in the City of Wau, was prevented from holding rallies by GoSS security officials.  Earlier, in a letter dated November 9, 2009, Salva Kirr, the First Vice-President of Sudan, had given orders through the Minister of Cabinet Affairs, Dr. Luka Tombekana Monja to governors of ten South Sudan States to hinder the work of other political parties.This goes against the rules of democracy and good governance.

Democracy in Sudan / Democracy in practice

The question, then is, what does democracy mean to Sudanese voters? African leaders inherited democracy from colonial masters without understanding the concept behind it. In essence, democracy, as applied in Sudan is tantamount to a “copy and paste” of western democracy, and lacks solid beliefs, values, and processes that are meaningful to the locals.  As a result, these artificial applications of democracy remain vulnerable to the instinctive impulse of tribalism. Therefore, democracy in Sudan is rife with tribalism, ethnic nepotism, and ethnic favouritism. 

It is not the visible process of democracy that will bring success overnight, but rather a host of behind the scenes and necessary development projects and initiatives on the ground, that will lead Sudan to the third dimension of democracy.

The third dimension of democracy is stability: which is a social-political precondition for both sustainable development and durable democracy.   Sudan’s three greatest needs are development, democracy, and stability. Alleviation of poverty is one of the fruits of democratised development, and it is also one of the most obvious and tangible gains to be had when democracy and development are jointly stabilised and truly humanised.

Democracy suffered greatly in Sudan during the Cold War era, because Sudanese government of the day was allowed to sacrifice civil liberties in the name of fighting communism.  The question now stands, as to whether democracy in Sudan will now suffer, again, because the Sudanese governments in South and North are encouraged to sacrifice civil liberties in the name of unfair election and illegitimate governments?

The three horsemen

Election rigging and other vote frauds, such as the ones allegedly taking place in Central Equatorial, Unity State, Wau, and other parts of Sudan in the Governorship and State Parliament races, are all clear indications of an unfair, non-free, non-transparent, non-credible, and non-inclusive election held with and in, an absence of rule of law.  Sudanese democracy is thus being killed by multiple assassins; which are the National Election Commission (NEC), the NCP, and SPLM.

Each of these three suspects in the election rigging game has had a hand in unfair elections, and indeed, has contributed to the death of democracy in Sudan. For example, the NEC in the North, by its decision to print presidential ballots in a government owned printing press, opened the door to unfair rigging and possible fraud in the creation of election materials. On the part of the NCP, its use of oil money and public services to fund its campaigns is a crass destruction of the democratic process and a trampling of Islamic laws.

Finally, the SPLM harassment of independent candidates, and directives and orders handed down to ban the activities of SPLM-DC, are an added false start to the work of democratization in Sudan.  However, democracy in South Sudan is not yet fully dead as there are still signs of life and hope.  Yes, it is true that first- aid is sorely required to give it life through recounts, cross- referencing voter lists with actual votes cast in areas where irregularities allegedly occurred, and so forth.

The way forward

In the final analysis, this unfair election may cause more harm than good to both SPLM, and NCP as CPA partners, and the road to independence for South Sudan through the upcoming referendum in 2011, will be that much more difficult.

From the indicators on the ground, most Southern Sudanese Citizens are in favour of separation under the SPLM; and the North is trying its utmost best to make continued unity attractive at all costs.  The only and final voices on the status and prospects for democracy in Sudan are the Sudanese people, who have remained oppressed for 25 years and would very much like to see change from a one party state to multi-party rule; all through good governance and its key components of fair, free, transparent, credible and inclusive elections; accountability and legitimacy in governance; and, the rule of law.

Kenya election was a litmus test but sadly African governments failed to learn from election riggings and frauds such as those that occurred in Nigeria in June12, 1993, Iran in June 2009, Kenya in 2007, Zimbabwe in 2008, and Afghanistan in 2009 and democracy will continue to suffer in the continent.

What should be done regarding rigging votes? The first step is that the NEC should resolve disputes over election results through a disputes and complaints committee. The results must be reviewed, with options put on the table including a recount (in Terekeka, Bentiu, and Wau) to satisfy stakeholders’ confidence in the NEC.

Finally, the way ahead is creation of a multi-national state thus must ascribe to the principles of equality, acceptance, respect, freedom, separation of religion from state, peace and reconciliation initiatives, need for the creation of national consciousness and of an awareness of common values, sense of responsibility for the country’s other cultures, and the law-enforcement against culture of corruption, tribalism, ethnic nepotism, and ethnic favouritism.

By Justin Laku

University of Ottawa, Canada.