After over 21-year-long civil war between north and south Sudan (supposed to have officially ended in 2005), and following the partition of the country on July 9 2011, tensions still remain highly evident in South Sudan and if well-adapted indigenous measures are not taken anything worst can happen again (even) in both countries.
It will be very hypocritical and extremely naive for any reasonable human being to deny the fact that the split of the former Africa’s largest country, Sudan into two is as a result of the disparity between the Northern region primarily made up of Arab-Muslims and the South and other impoverished regions largely dwelled by Christians and animists of African origin.
This issue must be perceived in a more historical way as it has its root to colonialism, as well as structural and political adjustments mainly driven by neocolonialism. It must however be noted that such a tendency [of imbalance between North and South] is not only limited to countries like [colonial] Sudan but also widely cuts across the entire African continent.
In the case of West Africa for instance, virtually all colonial masters settled at the coastal end – which is the southern part of many West African countries… One of the reasons which may account for this is the means of transport at the time. They came mainly by waters (sea, lakes etc.).
Consequently, the southern regions and states hosted most if not all (depending on the country) colonial administrations. This allowed for the construction of (government) edifices, (missionary) schools, clinics and hospitals…Obviously, only southerners benefited and continue to benefit from these amenities and the advantages that come with them. The result is the socio-economic, political, and educational imbalance between the North and the South.
The Sudanese Case
In the light of the above historical explanation, history was however in the opposite direction in the case of Sudan – the northern region enjoyed direct interaction and intervention from their British colonial power.
For about the first half of the 20th century, Sudan was under Anglo-Egyptian rule. This period was also a test for good governance that practically all Western powers preach. Good governance at the time must be taken into serious consideration for analytical grounds because it has direct links to events leading to the secession of South Sudan from Sudan in 2011 and the current state of affairs in both countries, especially in South Sudan.
In reality, the colonial administration opted to dichotomize the governance of Sudan as if it were two distinct states, giving overwhelming powers to the northern populace. This is not to reject the fact that the vast country is complex, even more multifaceted in terms of its religious and ethnic composition.
As against what was done in the north, the colonial administration chose to rule the south and other impoverished regions trough tribal chiefs, and sporadically intervened only to suppress tribal warfare and conflicts. But the ten years preceding the independence of Sudan was marked by a different style of leadership: the colonial administration decided to forgo the two disparate ruling policies in support of one which gave unlimited supremacy to the northern Arab-elites without prior consultation with southerners who by far have come to see themselves as politically, socio-economically and culturally marginalized.
Thus at the time of independence, so many issues remained unsettled, along with unresolved tensions paving the way for the first civil war and other subsequent turbulence after independence.
After independence
As clearly stated in the previous lines, the after-independence-period was marred with disastrous political unrests, a period which as well witnessed the proliferation of rebel groups with such vibrant ones as the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) and Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) along with other notable insurgent movements [mostly originating from the south] in response to the unfavorable governance style of Northern-Arab-elites.
For example, the SPLA was formed in reaction to the introduction of legislation in 1983 by president Nimieri to put in place a jurisdiction of implementation of controversial Islamic law otherwise known as Sharia. Another [major] reason, indeed the key factor that motivated the creation of the SPLA was the discovery of oil in Sudan, the first discovery being in Bentuin, Southern Sudan in 1978.
It is apparent that the proliferation of rebel groups in South Sudan with different quests is as a result of the style of governance of the colonial administration; this had – and continues to have insurmountable impacts on stability of the entire country especially in South Sudan.
From Liberation movement to political party
The SPLA, the only liberation movement that was strongly instrumental in leading South Sudan to independence – is not performing – and can never perform as a political party in power.
Ruling the country effectively will be more than a nightmare for the movement. The Sudan People’s Liberation Army never had any clear visions vis-à-vis governance issues because the key motivating factor that informed the creation of the movement was to respond to then Sudanese government oppressive rule, and in effect, its [SPLA] birth was not inspired by public or vested interests.
The way forward
Even after the secession of South Sudan from its mother-country Sudan, it still continues to experience seemingly never-ending internal conflicts and political unrest. It is evident that the [disastrous] colonial governance system links up to the root cause of the current environment of instability in South Sudan aggravated by weak, non-indigenous and ethnic-driven institutions.
In order to appease the situation, western powers must cut financial support to the country. Let the failing government collapse, a more radical and lasting situation to the situation. They must equally cease to impose structural and institutional adjustments that may be ill-suited to Sudanese political climate.
All institutions should be replaced with well-adapted indigenous institutions. The immediate consequences may seem unbearable, but in the long term, the country stands to largely benefit.