Second Birth

Literature 

INTRODUCTION            SECTION I              SECTION II          SECTION III     SUMMARY 

SECTION –III

IMPERATIVES FOR A SECOND BIRTH

 As we approach the coming period of transition, we have got to clear the deck to reveal the truth, expose misconceptions, and lay the ground for conscience clearing, and remedial action, to see that justice is done. In this sense, I herein discuss the issue of Human Rights in Transition. Closely linked to Human Rights, is the notion of Justice when dealing with issues of: identity, religion and politics, sustainable democracy, sustainable economic development, the armed forces, and self-determination.

 This section sees the Sudanese second birth in the cradle of human rights, it discusses Human rights, and justice concerning the above mentioned aspects, in the coming period of Transition.

 Chapter 1: Human Rights in Transition

Chapter 2: Transition and Justice. 

CHAPTER 1

HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE TRANSITION IN SUDAN

Universal religions and secular ideologies have dealt extensively with the issue of Human Rights. During the first half of the 20^th century, the West has experienced the worst ever violations of Human Rights. Small wonder, therefore, that at the end of the bloodiest experience in the whole of human history, the issue of Human Rights loomed so large and bred the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 10 December 1948. It declared the dignity and equality of human kind, and in 30 articles, spelt out their universal rights.

Then in 1966, the International Community issued the International Agreement on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as detailed in 31 articles. And the International Agreement on Civil and Political Rights, which in 53 articles spelt out the details.

Subsequently, many agreements on specific aspects have been issued, for example, the universal declaration on abolition of discrimination against women in November 1967, and so on. Those documents have since provided the definition of universally recognized Human Rights and the criteria for the civilized behavior of States and societies. Modern states of the UN have extensively signed them, and as extensively violated them.

 The Sudan, after independence, signed many of them and lodged reservations[1]. During the nine years of democratic governments, their violation was the exception. During the thirty-two years of despotic governments, their violation was the rule. However, the Sudan suffered a marathon civil war, during which both sides to the conflict violated Human Rights.

An objective survey of Human Rights’ violations in the Sudan would support the following four conclusions:

1.  That abuse of Human Rights during the despotic regimes exceeds by far, such violations during democracy.

2.  That violations of Human Rights in the three despotic regimes indicate a rising graph: from bad, to worse, to worst.

3.  Violations of Human Rights involved all Sudanese citizens, but its incidence on Southern regions and other marginalized regions was worse.

4.  The civil war introduced its own dimension of Human Rights violations, in which all parties to the armed conflict were involved.

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN SUDAN

Following is a list of Human Rights violations in chronological order. It is not an exhaustive list, but includes events which had a durable effect on national memory:

1. The bloody events of August 1955.

2. The mass death of the prisoners of Kosti prison cell.

3. The coup d’etat of November 1958.

4. Arbitrary arrests and torture.

5. The armed attack on civilians during the MULID celebration in 1961.

6. Cultural persecution.

7. The persecution of Southern civilians in JUBA and WAW, in 1965.

8. The dissolution of the Communist Party and the expulsion of its members of Parliament.

9. Holding the uncontested elections in the South, 1965.

10. The illegal dissolution of the constituent assembly, 1968.

11. The murder of SAYED WILLIAM DENG, 1968.

12. The coup d’etat of May 1969.

13.  The ABA and WADNUBAWI massacres, and the murder of IMAM AL HADI AL MAHDI and his followers in AL KURMUK, 1970.

14. Torture, arbitrary arrests, confiscation of property.

15. Show trials and tampering with the judiciary, during the second despotism.

16. Betrayal of own constitutional Human Rights provisions, particularly 1972 agreement.

17. Events of 1975 coup attempt and after.

18. Cultural persecution.

19. The events and repression which followed.

20. Murder of SAYED MAHMOUD MOHAMMAD TAHA, 1985.

21. Amputations, floggings, in demagogic application of Islamic punishments.

22. Shooting down of civilian planes: August 1986, May 1987.

23. AL DIAIN incident, 1988.

24. The revival of inter-tribal slavery, 1988.

25. The June 1989 coup d’etat.

26. The extra-judicial execution of 28 officers 1990.

27. Torture, arbitrary arrests, persecution of women.

28. Violations of the rules of war by parties to the conflict.

29. Inhuman treatment of the displaced peoples.

30. The use of food aid and its denial as a weapon in civil war.

31. Kidnappings, abductions, forced labor.

32. Forced conscription.

33. Persecution of civilians in war affected areas.

34. Economic persecution.

35. Educational persecution.

36. Sponsorship of terrorism.

37. Show trials and tampering with the judiciary.

38.  Cultural persecution.

39. Religious persecution.

40. Allegations of revival of slavery during NIF regime.

41. The cruel treatment of Prisoners of war.

42. The subversion of education for military purposes.

43. The use of food as a weapon.

There is a perception, advocated by many, that the story of human rights violations is a one sided track of Northern oppression and Southern victimization. I have already outlined the misdeeds of the different regimes, which governed the Sudan since independence. Northern political forces, which dominated these governments, bear responsibility for them.

 However, to put the matter in objective perspective, I offer the following observations: -

FIRST: Much of Northern policies towards the south were negatively influenced by the southern policy initiated by the British colonial administration.

Much Southern perception of the situation sees and condemns the Northern reactions without sufficiently recognizing British culpability.

SECOND: Apart from the issue of Northern bad faith, Southern political ineptness is responsible for failure to represent Southern interests strongly enough especially under democratic conditions. The challenge in Democracy is to be able to organize to serve political ideas and/or interests. Southern society has produced effective military organizations, not so political organizations which are the bread and butter of a democracy. The first Southern party after independence, the Liberal Party was a fragile organization, which had little political clout and allowed its members to be manipulated by other parties. SANU, which had in SAYED WILLIAM DENG an able Statesman, was undermined by the armed military wing, ANYANYA, and after the death of SAYED WILLIAM, no effective leadership or organization succeeded him. The Southern Front, which was composed of a group of competent intellectuals, had not been able to evolve a pattern of leadership and organization. Association with the Nimeiri regime arrested its political evolution. This frustrated and disappointed all those who did political business with it! The numerous parties, which were formed after the 1985 uprising, were locally based quasi-tribal grouping that served as electoral agencies. Even then, they were prone to fragmentation on a personal and tribal basis.

The SPLM/A is an effective organization, but clearly the political identity is absorbed in the military. Its ability to develop a cohesive effective political organization without a military backbone is a future challenge. Unless Southern political opinion forms effective political organization, or joins Northern parties on equitable terms, Southern interests will not be guaranteed under democratic conditions.

THIRD: As a corollary of failure to form effective organizations of political assertion, and more success with military organization, Southern political expression tends to resort hastily to violent means. Violence may be justified in certain circumstances, but to be the norm, it is self-defeating, because it may lead to effective countervailing reaction, and because it becomes a means of settling internal disputes and so fragmentation. The hasty and massive resort to violence in August 1955 did a disservice to Southern interests and stamped South / North relations with a negative character. The same may be said about the shooting down of the two civilian planes immediately after top level negotiations between the Prime Minister of Sudan and the SPLM/A chairman in July 1986. Negotiations, which did not make a breakthrough, but kept the door open for further development of the peace process. The failure to recognize the political and constitutional change, which took place on 6^th April 1985, was a political blunder.

FOURTH: There is a tendency among many Sudanese intellectuals to lump the governments which governed the Sudan together making little distinction between legitimately constituted governments, and the police States created by coups d’etat. Amongst Southern intellectuals and politicians, this failure to distinguish between the two categories of government, portrays the North as one culpable entity united in oppressing the South. No doubt there are common Northern misconceptions about the South, but substantial Southern political opinion branded together two types of Northern dominated governments in an unjustified way. In this context, a well respected Southern intellectual- Politician SAYED ABEL ALIER called his book on the Southern problem “A String of Broken Promises “. The reality is:

·   The promise by the political leaders to consider federal status for the South (in 1955) when the country’s constitution is drafted went unfulfilled because the constitution making process was aborted by the 17th November coup d’etat.

·    The recommendation of the Twelve- man Committee and the All-party Conference (1967) were rendered fruitless by the 1969 coup d’etat.

 In both cases, the Northern party to the agreements and the politicians concerned were immobilized by the new military government. The 1972 peace agreement was reached with Nimeiri. It was essentially reached with an illegally constituted government, and with a “leader" who systemically broke all deals with Northerners and Southerners alike.

 More to the point:

  n  All peace initiatives and tendencies to resolve the civil war by political agreement were associated with democratic governments, namely, the Round Table Conference 1965, the Twelve Man Committee 1966, The All Party Peace Conference 1967, The KOKADAM Declaration 1986, The Sudanese initiative 1988, The Palace Transition Program 1989, and the scheduled constitutional conference for 18 September 1989. Even the June 1995 ASMARA Resolutions were reached between the SPLM/A and the coalition of political forces, which constituted the government in the third democracy.

  n   All war initiatives were associated with the despotic governments, namely, 1963, 1975, 1983, 1991. The Addis agreement of 1972 was reached during the second despotic regime, however, it was based on the homework of the previous democratic government, and the regime which signed it, proved that it was not consistent with its character by soon breaking it, and preparing the country for a far worse civil war 1983 than the one it ended in 1972.

POLICY TOWARDS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

I call for a policy, which is both effective and legitimate in terms of human rights criteria.

FIRST OF ALL: That policy should aim at exposing the facts so that the truth is established in an officially sanctioned way so that the findings form an authoritative version of events over above partisan considerations.

SECONDLY, That policy must in a viable way represent the will of the people.

THIRDLY, as we shall see, each country will be affected by its own specific conditions which influence how it deals with the issue, particularly between conditions which necessitate measures of clemency, and conditions which demand prosecution and punishment. In the first case, that of clemency, the policy should be consistent with the limits imposed on the State by international law. In the second case, that of prosecution and punishment, international standards related to truth, treatment of offenders, and penalties, international standards should be respected.

Establishing the truth has a therapeutic effect because in the words of Roger Errera, member of the French consiel d’etat “memory is the ultimate form of justice “. It is also a deterrent because “telling the truth about the past undermines the mental foundation of human rights abuses”.

An important aspect of any effective policy is to establish a qualified mechanism, for example, a TRUTH and impeachment commission, which should find the facts and decide upon their impeachability.

The violations should be investigated under six categories:

·   Political and constitutional violations.

·   War crimes.

·   Crimes against humanity.

·   Crimes against individuals.

·   Cultural oppression.

Legislation should regulate the composition of the truth and impeachment commission, its terms of reference, the time frame, and its procedures.

Apart from that issue, constitutional and political violations should be dealt with by a special court to try the offenders of the May 1969, and June 1989 Juntas.

The truth about the November 1958 coup d’etat will be uncovered by the truth and impeachment commission, but there should be no prosecution for three reasons: -

FIRSTLY: The November Junta negotiated the terms of democratic transformation with the representatives of the people. Those terms involved amnesty for the coup making.

 SECONDLY, the November Junta was the least abusive of human rights among the three Juntas.

 THIRDLY, all the November offenders are now dead – accountable to the Ultimate Judge.

The special court to try the May 1969, and June 1989, offenders should be established by law which would empower it to prosecute and punish them.

The May offenders have managed to escape the punishment that they deserve, because they were tried by an ordinary court of law and because the June 1989 coup decided to offer them amnesty.

Our own experience in the Sudan shows that prosecution of coup makers especially for violating the constitution cannot be decided on abstract principles of justice. The balance of power and the mode of transfer of power influence accountability.

General ABBOUD still had official army support when he decided to respond to the call for democracy. When his military commanders offered the representatives of the people to hand over power and allow democratic transformation to take place in exchange for amnesty and temporary nominal power for ABBOUD, the representatives of the people unanimously accepted the deal. Not so with Nimeiri. Responding to the popular uprising of April 1985, and the specific call for the armed forces to support the call for democracy, the whole military establishment decided to expel Nimeiri and terminate his regime without any conditions.

Consequently, the offenders of the May 1969 Junta were put on trial. Whatever plans we may envisage for the June 1989 Junta what actually happens to them cannot be decided before hand on moral and legal grounds only.

S. HUNTINGTON made a study of democratic transformation in scores of countries. Some transformation into genuine democracy developed in terms of the regime’s own decision to democratize. In the case of BRAZIL, for example, the decision to democratize was the regime’s own decision without pressure. In many other cases, democratization is the result of an agreement between the regime and the opposition. In a few cases. Democracy comes as a result of the overthrow of the despotic regime. He offered the following guide lines for the would be democratizes:

If transformation or transplacement occurred: Do not attempt to prosecute authoritarian officials for human rights abuses. The political costs of such an effort will outweigh any moral gains.

If the regime is overthrown: Prosecute the leaders of the authoritarian regime promptly (within a year of your coming to power) while making clear that you will not prosecute middle and lower ranking officials.

Devise a means to achieve full and dispassionate public accounting of how and why the crimes were committed.

Recognize that on this issue, each alternative presents grave problems, and that the least unsatisfactory course may well be: do not prosecute, do not punish, do not forgive, and above all do not forget.[2][1]

However, there can be no specific policy to be decided in anticipation: In Latin America, for example, almost all-democratic transformations, except in Argentine, have been accompanied by a law of amnesty. In Africa provisions for amnesty have also accompanied most of democratic transformations. The two exceptions being Sudan after the overthrow of Nimeiri in 1985, and Ethiopia after the overthrow of Mengistu in 1991.

There are two conclusions, which emerge:

If the despotic regime is overthrown, there is the widest scope for prosecutions and punishments. No political limits exist to the quest for justice and retribution.

If democratization comes as a result of transplacement, i.e. negotiated agreement, some form of clemency is inevitable. “The issue here is how to settle a past account without upsetting the present transition “. (KADAR ASMAL, Chairman of ANC commission, South Africa).

Whatever the mode of transformation, an authentic version of the TRUTH about the past must be established.

Certain crimes against individuals, and compensation for certain violations should not fall within the terms of amnesty.

However, to day, there is an emerging international aspect to transitional justice.

One hundred and twenty States have voted in July 1998 to set up a permanent International Criminal Court to deal with human rights violations in four categories of abuse, they are: crimes of aggressive war-making, war crimes, crimes against Humanity and crimes against Human Rights.

Such a mechanism, when it materializes will open new horizons and subject human rights offenders to prosecution and punishment whatever the internal arrangements of their position may be! Also, the international human rights constituency has grown enormously with at least 800 internationally active agencies at work. They investigate and publish information about human rights abuses everywhere. Some of them are sure to seek to prosecute offenders if a mechanism is available.

In December 1998, the UMMA Party appointed a committee to study the entire alternative National and International possibilities. Action should begin even before transition arrives.

CHAPTER 2

 TRANSITION AND JUSTICE

International charters, and agreements on Human Rights have a very wide range indeed.  The NDA’s ASMARA Resolutions of June 1995 have made a decisive contribution to policies and institutions, which should embody a rebirth of the Sudan, and realize the aspiration of all its peoples. Without repeating those resolutions, I shall comment on the most Important aspects of Sudanese renewal, under the following eight headings:

1) Sudanese identity, the cultural character.

2) Religion and politics.  

3) Sustainable democracy.

4) Sustainable economic development.

5) The armed forces.

6) Decentralization.

7) International relations.

8) Self-determination.

It is a basic conflict over these issues which led to polarization, violence, and violations in human rights. Unless the cause is uprooted, the effect will soon follow.

Therefore an approach to Human Rights in the TRANSITION in Sudan should transcend the static concept of fact-finding, rectification, and redress for the past abuses, and espouse the dynamic concept of sustainable Human Rights.

 Modern Sudanese history was dominated by two views relating to the cultural dimensions, namely:

1) That the development of a modern society, modern state, and national unity is only possible at the cost of transcending inherited cultures, i.e., a policy of cultural negation.  .

2) That to achieve National unity, and deter alien acculturation, and build our authentic identity, the dominant culture should absorb all other cultural identities i.e., a policy of cultural domination.

 Modern history has proven that attempts to uproot inherited cultures are failures, and indeed counter productive, for example, Turkey and ALGERIA. The attempt to impose a dominant culture on other cultures has been resisted, caused polarization, and civil wars.

International consciousness about cultural affairs has by-passed such concepts. The reports of the South Commission1990, mentioned neglect of the cultural aspect as one of the reasons why development plans have failed. The report of the International Commission on Culture and Development 1996, cited the creativity of Human cultural diversity, and advocated Human cultural rights as the latest addition to the Human Rights portfolio.

A Sudanese cultural charter is being worked out to the satisfaction of all Sudan’s cultural communities.

The following eight points are suggested for the charter:

  n  To recognize Sudan’s cultural and religious pluralism, to establish a cultural map for the Sudan, to guarantee the cultural rights of all the Sudanese communities and to establish mutual recognition and coexistence between the cultural communities.

  n  Development plans, the media, and educational programs should recognize the cultural diversity of the Sudan, encourage cultural development, and accommodate the different cultures in a balanced way.

  n  Cultural policy should be decentralized to make room for regional cultural identities without compromising the principle of citizenship as the basis for constitutional rights and duties, and without violating rights and obligations to the center.

  n  Inherited cultures are not and should not be conceived as static. Recognizing the importance of cultural identity should not mean the rejection of cultural contact and exchange.

  n  Certain universal principles and values should be assimilated by all cultures, they are, democracy, social justice, the pursuit of knowledge, scientific knowledge, and the values common to civilizations.

  n   To encourage the enlightened expressions of Islam and Christianity, to avoid all compulsion in religious matters, to encourage dialogue between the faiths, and to make room for African spiritual values which give great concern for relations between MAN and NATURE, between the rational and the instinctive, and between contemporary and past generations. The regulation of friendly contact between the faiths, and proselytization to take place in a climate of tolerance and voluntary choice.

  n  The recognition of Arabic as the National language and lingua franca. Recognition of regional languages in their respective regions. Recognition of English as the first foreign language to facilitate teaching, training, researches, and contact with the outside world.

n  To encourage inter African cultural exchanges, Afro-Arab cultural cooperation, and friendly dialogue between cultures and civilizations to produce a universal cultural charter as a necessary beam in an enlightened world order.

Religion has played a vital role in Sudanese history. The archaeology of the ancient kingdoms of Sudan in MEROE and NABATA shows the sense of their religious zeal.

Then the Christian kingdoms of ALWA, and MACOURA ruled Sudan. Then the Islamic kingdoms of FUR, FUNG, TAGALI, and MUSABBAAT.

Then comes MOHAMAD ALI’S conquest of the Sudan in 1821.

One of the main reasons for the NATIONAL Religious revolution in Sudan – The MAHDIA – is the religious violations of the outgoing government – so called TURKYA.

Then in 1898 came the so-called Anglo-Egyptian Conquest of the Sudan. At independence, Sudanese identity reasserted it self in terms of the policies of the political parties.

Religious identity loomed large in the programs of the mass political parties. That religious Islamic association alienated non-Moslems who had their own Christian and African religious beliefs.

Sudanese political opinion began to appreciate the need for an agreement to accommodate religious plurality. Just when a constitutional conference was envisaged in September 1989 to settle the issue among others, the June 1989 coup d’etat put the clock back.

The Sudanese are a deeply religious people, and even when they start with an anti-religious position, they soon move in the opposite direction, for example, the SPLM/A expressed Marxist Leninist tendencies at the beginning. However, at a later date, in 1992, Dr. John Garang took a positive attitude to religion and called the New Sudan Church Council addressing the general assembly of the NSCC: ”The spiritual wing of the movement.”[3][1]

Statements such as the separation of religion from State, and the separation of religion from politics emerged in European history at a time when emergent democratic society faced Church backed obstruction.

As European Statehood matured since the peace of Westphalia in 1648, and since European and American Democracy developed and matured in the 19th century, Western democratic societies found a pragmatic balance between Religion and State, Religion and Politics. Churches and Religious organizations are very powerful in western societies. Almost all-European flags have the Cross in their symbolism.

In Britain, the Queen is both head of State and Church.

The House of Lords, which is part of the British legislative and judicial process, has a large number of Church's Lords. Many powerful western political parties include the description “Christian “ in their name.

Even in the most glaringly secular State, the U.S.A, the political clout of religious institutions is considerable. The current domination of the American Houses of Congress by the Republican party owes so much to the powerful support of the Christian fundamentalist groups, pushed into action by the Clinton administration’s too  “Liberal “ policies especially on abortion. Disgusted by the fall out from the MONICA GATE, Christian fundamentalist leadership, which has in the first place insisted on impeaching Clinton and expelling him from office, is now moving in the opposite direction. Pat Robertson, the prominent Christian fundamentalist leader has had enough, he declared that America had other priorities than to deal in scandal. His opinion may be an important factor in making the Senate settle for an alternative to a full-blown trial.

 The American President is required to take an oath upon taking office.

Oath taking is required by the constitution for many transactions. President GEORGE WASHINGTON said:” Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice “.[4][1]

 The most mundane of U.S. articles, the dollar, bears the inscription:” In God we trust”. How can religion be separated from State?

The State is people, territory, and powers: executive, legislative and judiciary. The State has to recognize the religious beliefs of the people. The State has to legislate to regulate some aspects of a national religious community. The courts have to adjudicate in such matters. Constitutional legal and judiciary procedures involve extensive oaths, which have a religious content, and so on.

            How can politics be separated from religion?

Genuine religious beliefs influence the political opinions and principles of citizens. Those who can separate them are those who really have no religious beliefs. It is not a question of separation, but of discarding religious beliefs.

            To speak about secularism is also unacceptable, because in essence, secularism is a philosophy which confines meaning in This Time and This Place, i. e, worldly significance. It is a word with very rich connotations, which invite and perpetuate controversy.

            What we are really looking for is not a reduction of religion, but an elevation of citizenship identity, and protecting it from the encroachment of any extra-citizenship considerations. We seek to establish:

·   Citizenship as the basis of constitutional rights and duties.

·   No political party, which seeks power to the exclusion of others on religious grounds, should be permitted.

·   There shall be no discrimination on grounds of religion, race, gender, or culture.

In Summary: Citizens should be free to pursue their religious beliefs so long as they do so democratically, and seek no political or constitutional advantage for themselves as believers, and recognize the principle that the Nation/State is for all its citizens, without discrimination. What we shall seek to establish and protect, are the rights of believers. However, there are some sections of Sudanese political society, which feel it necessary to devalue the rights of believers. In May 1998, in Pennsylvania University, SAYED STEPHEN WANDU, made the following cute observation: “Some of the Northern elites, which call themselves secularists, seek to enhance their position under the umbrella of identity and cultural pluralism. After they have failed to find a mass base for their ideology, they turned their attention Southwards to look for a cover for their ideology or to persuade Southern elites to accept their ideology to fight for it on their behalf. Those Northern elites always express their ideology in extremist terms. They seek to question and vilify Islamic Arabic civilization, and look for an alternative to it, it is a counter productive stratagem, because it leads to extremism in the opposite direction”.

There is no basis in Sudan for government to be based on dynastic authority.

All attempts to base legitimacy on dictatorship have been inherently unstable, and have had catastrophic results. There is no alternative to democracy as a basis of government in the Sudan.

 However, three times democratic government in the Sudan were subverted. Apart from the general reasons which tend to undermine democracy in conditions of under-development, there are eight specific reasons which have to be tackled to make democracy sustainable, they are:

1.  The continuous civil- war. Even in conditions of mature democratic systems, several aspects of democracy are suspended during war conditions. The civil war has influenced democratic governments negatively, because, it extended military influence, it absorbed human and material resources diverting them from development and welfare, it increased security risks and required greater vigilance. Civil war conditions, especially when it is an extended affair involving whole regions, tax democratic governments to the utmost limit, and obstruct their functioning.

2.   Democracy is not simple vote power, which can decide an issue on the basis of a 51% vote. There are two social forces which the one man one vote majoritarian system fails to accommodate sufficiently, they are:

                                    ·   Modern social forces which in the underdeveloped stage of the country constitute a minority, feel that the one man one vote system, does not give them a voice commensurate with their real social power. That makes many sections of those modern social forces question the legitimacy of the one man one vote system.

                                    ·   Cultural minorities which are sufficiently conscious of a separate identity, and which feel that the majoritarian system somehow constrain them.

                                    ·   Democracy needs to be qualified by certain balancing measures to absorb these frustrations without seriously undermining the one-man one-vote basis of representative democracy.

3.  Sudanese mass political parties are influenced by religious and tribal loyalties. However, they are less sectarian than political parties in many Middle Eastern countries, and less tribal than many African parties. A law for political party organization should help make them more national and more democratic. The less national and less democratic they are, the less is the legitimacy of their authority. On the other hand, there are the doctrinaire political parties of ISLAMICIST, Communist, Arabist, and Africanist disposition. They are really committed to totalitarian ideologies, and as such constitute a threat to democracy, because they have used the rights guaranteed in democracy, to undermine it. Party political reform should aim to rectify political parties and make them national and democratic. There will always be differences between political parties because of the differences in their principles and the social interests they represent. Such differences are of the essence of democracy.

4.  Trade unions are basic constituents of civil society in a democracy. They have a legitimate function. They have played quasi- political roles in the struggle against foreign domination and dictatorship. That type of national political role is justifiable. Doctrinaire parties and ambitious individuals have attempted to use them politically to effect a civil coup against democratically established governments. This constitutes a threat to democracy and must be politically and legally contained.

5.  Freedom of the press is a corner stone of democracy. Under the first and second democracy in the Sudan, the Sudanese press behaved in a responsible way and constituted viable industry and media organs. In the third democracy, the press was most irresponsible and played an important role in undermining democracy. Policy and legislation should firmly seek to establish a healthy free press. Any failure to do so will subvert the democratic system.

6.  The Independence of the judiciary is crucial to democracy. The judiciary should mind the functions of the other organs of state without abdicating its legitimate power. Its judges should be politically neutral to avoid making a sham of the independence of the judiciary. A reform of the judiciary in the light of past experience is essential to sustainable democracy.

7.  The two most important achievements of modern political development are the peaceful succession of political power, and the subservience of the armed forces to the elected civilian command. The Sudanese armed forces have a tradition of political interventions during which they were instrumental in sacrificing their own discipline and doing a disservice to the country. Democracy can only be sustained when the armed forces are through specific policy measures, and specific legislation, subordinated to the command of the elected government and constrained by appropriate means from any coup making possibility.

8.  All the drawbacks here stated have translated in making democratic government (the executive) institutionally weak. There are other reasons in the Sudanese political circumstances, which further weakened government, if that was possible! Throughout the history of democratic government in Sudan, no political party was able to win a majority to enable it to form a government. Parties, therefore, resorted to coalition making. Coalition government is by definition weak. It is weakened further by the fact that the coalition partners in the Sudan share the Cabinet and the Sovereignty or State Council. The Primeministership goes to the larger party, the Presidency of the state council goes to the other party. The parliamentary constitution, which is the basis of the distribution of power between the organs of the state, requires that all executive power be in the hands of the cabinet. The council of state, like the British Queen, reigns but does not govern. This concept is so alien to indigenous culture, that there is no meaningful Arabic translation for it. Even if it was not so alien, however, the smaller party tends to use its position in the Council of State to compensate for its smaller status in the cabinet.

A continuous weakness, nay, crisis accompanied executive power in the Sudanese democratic government. The Sudan, especially under the conditions of decentralization, even federation, requires a strong executive. It was the federal pattern of decentralization, which prompted the Founding Fathers of the American Constitution to seek a strong presidency. Any return to the institutions of democracy, undermine democracy as defined and experienced in the Sudan will simply reproduce the crisis, undermine democracy, and encourage would be coup makers to overthrow it. In the conditions of the Sudan, a strong executive is an imperative for sustainable democracy.

            Man does not live by bread alone, but bread is necessary for his survival, without which all the other worthy things come to naught. The challenge of development in the contemporary world is the most serious challenge which states and societies have to face. So far, for many countries, the development challenge has not been faced with the determination and mobilization it requires for lifting itself up from poverty and misery. A dedicated commitment, in contemporary circumstances to development is an imperative for human dignity as well as for patriotism.

Economic development had been measured in terms of growth in income per head. Sustainable economic development should be measured, in addition to growth in income per head of population, in terms of another four criteria, namely:

(A) The impact of the growth in incomes on the growth of social welfare, so that it is reflected in better education, better health, longevity, and all the accepted welfare criteria.

(B) Development could be insensitive to environmental issues, squandering natural resources, and endangering their future. Therefor, development should safeguard the sustainable utilization of natural resources.

(C) Culture, the sum total of values, beliefs, attitudes, customs, and patterns of behavior in a given society is a vital pillar of socio-economic development. Development strategies, which failed to address the cultural dimension, have created a climate of apathy, alienation, and strife. It prepared the ground for reactionary cultural protest.

(D)  Failure to espouse a regionally balanced development strategy fueled regional grievances and ultimately caused violent conflict, even civil war. This had an adverse effect upon development.

If and when growth in income per head is accompanied by positive developments in these four aspects, the resultant development is what I describe as sustainable development. Before the onset of the Sudanese totalitarian regimes, the Sudanese economy was viable in that it produced enough to feed its population, to realize a social surplus to finance a moderate degree of development. Production also supplied enough exports to pay for the necessary imports, and even a balance of payments surplus. The Sudanese national currency was $ 3.3 to the pound. The economic policies of the Sudanese democratic regimes were rational and pragmatic. They could be faulted on matters of omission, they failed to restructure the economy and cater for sectional and regional grievances. The economic policies of the Sudanese totalitarian regimes, on the other hand, committed errors of commission; they were trigger-happy seeing an effective military solution to national conflicts. They had to develop enormous security systems to suppress the civilian population- an internal war front. Therefore, they expanded military and security expenditure, to an Nth power to pay for it. That, plus a fall in production levels in the economic performance of both totalitarian regimes, resulted in continuous increasing internal and external financial deficits. They are responsible for the monetary indiscipline, which led to the huge cancerous expansion in government indebtedness, and in the volume of money. The financial and monetary indiscipline reflected itself in the worthlessness of the National currency. The pound became 0.04 of a cent.

The May regime saddled the country with the external debt - a monument to its financial folly and its subservience to foreign manipulation. The two totalitarian systems were responsible for a doctrinaire attitude to the economy, which harmed it in both the leftist and rightist expressions.

For a number of decades, Communism advocated a short cut towards economic development and social justice. That conception influenced economic thought in much of the “third world”. With the collapse of Communism in much of Eastern Europe, the planned economy fell into disrepute. The swing translated itself into a pervasive belief in free market fundamentalism. Development by the state has failed, so the answer is development without the state. However, such a swing back in the opposite direction is unwarranted. Development without the state would also fail. Yes, the state can not fulfill the role of the free market. Nor can the free market replace the state in its role as development promoter. To make the free market possible, and to promote development, the state must secure the following:

·   Create and maintain the rule of law to ensure the legal basis of society, protect rights of property, and guard the sanctity of contracts.

·   Establish and maintain sound macro-economic policies in the financial, monetary, trade, and investment areas.

·   Promote micro-economic policies conducive to economic activity.

·   Promote the development of physical infrastructure in transport, communications, and energy.

·   Promote the development of social infrastructure in health, education, and social security.

·   Seek to redress regional imbalances.

·   Protect the vulnerable sections of society.

·   Protect the environment.

·   Be mindful of positive association of development with culture.

The free market as promoted and complemented by this positive economic role for the state, is the theoretical framework for sustainable development.

THE ECONOMIC POTENTIAL OF THE SUDAN