Geopolitics: Governance, Money and Elitism- do they promise a future democracy in the Sudan?

By: Miyar De'Nyok, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Sudan has been waiting for decades and far behind in the building of full participatory democracy since colonial era of Africa partition and border demarcations. This has made Sudan an autocratic state and tyrannical nation internationally.

The call for elections next year will suggest and determine whether Sudan will establish democratization and constitute fairness in the elections. If that dream election happens to be fair then we can bet that we -the Sudanese have moved toward civil society rights.

However, the questions of marginalization and elitism still remain unanswerable and doubtful by many Southerners and the marginalized communities in the Sudan. Looking back at the historical leadership and state of development, the truth reveals and presents itself that Sudan is not yet ready for civil society voice to be heard.

I predict that the outcome of 2009 elections will hold onto the same leaders and the same policy executioners. Another issue is that the elections will define whether the integration or disintegration of the Sudan is feasible and possible in 2011.

There are many things the elections encompass: the evolution of power, the fragmentation of elite societies, and the pavement of development in the developing regions of the Sudan.

As the title of this article is: Geopolitics: governance, money, and elitism, does it promise a future democracy in the Sudan? I would like to define each term in relation to the state Sudan is and how it has been in the past.

Geopolitics:
Geopolitics is the influence of political and economic exploitation on specific geographic region by the means of power, blackmailing and suppression. The aftermath of post independence in the Sudan was the beginning of geopolitics. When British left power to Arab elite ruling class, it was their opportunities to promote regional marginalization, disenfranchising the black African communities and control the power.

Since pre-independence, the Southern Sudanese had been waging war against their counterpart in the North to win self determination, hence, the Addis Ababa agreement was signed and abrogated after ten years. Even the incumbent president of the republic of Sudan acknowledged that Sudan did not get independence because at eve of independent in 1956, the Southerners took arms in 1955 that was an indication that dissatisfaction was a stake that needed to be answered.

Presently, geopolitics is still an enormous obstacle that is blasting CPA and development in the developing regions of Sudan. We can recognize that geopolitics is the stumbling block through the slowness of CPA implementation and violation of many chapters in the CPA. The NCP is interested in oil-rich regions and their policies do not encourage and enhance development as promised in the CPA.

It is the geopolitics that has led to suffering of many people in the marginalized communities, which I can define as the worst catastrophe that has resulted in economic and environmental refugees of the decade in the 21st century.

Do geopolitics aid and attract unity in the Sudan? Absolutely no; it does not advocate unity rather the disintegration of the Sudan. Southerners and marginalized communities need a better division of national cake, good governance and physical development not a lip-pledged service. Therefore, the NCP needs a change of directorial governing for unity to exist.

Governance and Democracy:
Governance is the most important system and functional unity that institutes accountability, transparency and equitability of governing civil society. These dreams had never, never and never been tasted by the citizens of Sudan. The current system seems to remain folded clinging to the past. Not much has changed except a lip pledged services that woo the suffering of citizens.

When can we the Sudanese see the proactive government that institutes and executes a functional society that is free from wars, oppressions and economic blackmailing?

I think as a separatist it is my time not to buy unity because unity still limits opportunities for a dream South Sudan. There are no much difference between governance and democracy, the two are twin words that develop and define the same issues at stake.

The democratic system is not anything Sudanese citizens should dream right now because all incumbents are men in military uniform. It is the toughest contest to win or vote out elites in military uniform. Zimbabwe is an example for us.

I think what defines good governance and democratic governments are the services the government gives to her citizens. Does our government offer services that make us good citizens? I leave it to individual to answer it on his /her own feeling on how we are currently being treated.

Elitism and Money:
Elitism is an ideology that promotes a very small class of people to rule over the majority of people. Elite class in the Sudan has been the problem and is still a stumbling block that promotes injustice and deprives us from participatory democracy and good governance.

Since independence, an Arab elite class had been ruling Sudan without evolving power to African black communities, but they did change the stakes rather then disenfranchising the African black communities.

The problem of the Sudan is interconnected to elitism, marginalization and lack of good governance. I think it will be very hard to institute civil society in the Sudan now unless elitism is derogated. And the civil society is allowed to take effect by establishing participatory democracy.

With the looming oil industry, and oil price increases, money is now the central point to maintain power. The ruling classes enrich themselves and hire those who can keep them on the throne. Money is also an issue that underscored development and attracted unity if equally shared.

But none of these, be it elitism or money has never been seen opting out from our counterpart northerners. Can Sudan be a united country if elitism and monetary manipulation are downsized? Only if equitability, liberty, good governance and power evolution is proactively seen on the stage, should we be united.

What direction we need?
In summation, we the Sudanese need a change of governing direction that will accommodate: good governance, power evolution, civil society rights, economic innovation, proactive development for developing regions, peace restoration, participatory democracy and state constitution that is free from any religious affiliation; these are the only ways a united Sudan can be established.

Otherwise, the unity of Sudan remains questionable and disintegration is the only solution on the table. And democratic system is not yet to be allured to now!

YOUR COMMENTS, HERE