Sudan: What is going on?

A lecture delivered to the Gulf Cultural Club by

*Dr El Amin Mohammad Othman and *Dr Abdul Wahab Al Effendi

on 14 October, 2004

 Chairman: Dr Saeed  Shehabi: Tonight we are going to discuss an issue that we do not normally deal with. In this club we normally talk about countries in the Middle East. But Sudan is becoming more and more significant for a number of reasons: geographical, economic, ideological and, of course, political. What has been happening in Sudan over the past three to four years has largely been neglected by the news media apart from the occasional reference and only when things are, or appear to be, out of control such as the events in Dafour recently.

 Over the past few weeks we heard about a coup attempt and allegations that plotters plotted to overthrow the government and that a lot of arms were found etc. How true and significant is the attempt – if there was any - and how realistic is the    possibility that the coup plotters, or those who were accused of plotting the coup, would be put to death, as the president himself indicated.  Or is the whole thing part of an internal struggle for power? Many people do not know the answers to these questions: hence the title of tonight’s seminar – What is going on? The reality is still obscure to many people  and this is why we have our two speakers who may like to share their information about what is going on in Sudan.

 Dr El Amin Mohammad Othman: I thought I would give a general background before I talk about the present situation. Sudan is little known sometimes and you don’t know when you are talking to respected people like yourselves the sorts of questions need to be qualified.

 Sudan is a very flat land except for the swamp area in the south. Even if you find highlands it is a matter of hills rather than mountains if you compare them to the Alps or the Pyrannes.  This is important as it allowed freedom of movement because of drought, the search of pastures or  just moving out because of the sultans.

 Sudan, especially the centre of  Sudan, has existed for a very long time. It has pyramids which predate those of Egypt. It is neighbouring Arabia which has left a permanent and even growing effect till. There was immigration from Sudan from Ethiopia or Western Africa and Uganda and there was emigration from West Africa, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia and Yemen.

 The pre-Islamic Arabs who came to Sudan, like the Bija, do not speak Arabic – they speak Arabic and a mixture of the old languages. In this funny country there are Arabs who do not speak Arabic. Because of the land there has always been a lot of mixing go. It is a melting pot but there is also the conflict of civilisations.

 I can give you fresh examples like Dafour. Because of the geography and the pictures you see there you see black Africans. But in southern Dafour there have been Arabian tribes who have immigrated from Arabia who immigrated from Arabia. I took one of them, which is called Beni Hilba. In Iraq they are called Al Jibour. Until now they are very ferocious people.  They came to Sudan and eventually emigrated to Egypt and then to North Africa. Then they came again to Sudan and moved to southern Darfour where they look after their cattle, as they have been doing all the time. There are other tribes like Zegat and Maria. Both of them are nomadic Arab tribes. Darfour has more casualties and more problems than any other war, present or past.

In the east it was the desert which has kept tribes like Rashaida who came from areas like the Emirates and Al Zubaida who came from Yemen in their traditional life style. There was also immigration for religious reasons when the mujathids were defeated by the British army (Hunter). They made hijra to the Sudan.

 For this reason the people from West Africa make up about 10 percent of  what are called northern Sudanese Arabian tribes.  The African neolitics came from the south as well. And Darfour is a mixture of all those tribes, cultures and people who came and went and came again. Eventually they became Muslims. The Arab traders came from the north and the Arab nomads came from the west and the east and they made up the central Sudan.

The River Nile  actually stands as an insurance policy because  the nomads were to the east and to the west. Every ten or fifteen years there was a drought and people come to the Nile. They stay and then they go back to their old traditions. And of course people are people: when they come to the Nile they trade and they inter marry.

 So Fazin came from north Africa from Fez and they are actually the people who spread the knowledge of the Qur’an and the fikr (the malaki) and the Arabic language and the dress of ladies. When you see the dress of the Sudanese and Mauritanian ladies you understand the links.

 In the 14 – 15^th century Islam came from the south-east and that was the beginning of the Kingdom of Sana or Mamluka Al Zaka. It was a big kingdom which has its own contribution to the studies of its people in Al Azhar. Zaka means black.

 From  there we come to the invasion of Mohammed Ali. This was the first time the Sudan was forced into a centralised government trying to empower itself by fighting people as well as God. Following that there was a religious rebellion headed by Al Mahdi. Mahdi was educated and came from Dongola in the north, educated in Jazeera the centre of the Sudan and then moved to the Nuba mountains and then eventually defeated the Egyptians and the British.

I have gone into the history because some of the developments have their reflections, if not politically  than psychologically.

 We come to independence. On the even of independence in 1956 the political, social  and religious powers divided first into Sudanese tribes in the east and in the west and the south. They themselves were a site of power. Secondly the religious sects the mirgani and the khatmeia. The mirgani came from the Hejaz and the Mahdia and the others coming from India.

The second group are the nerolites, the educated group post  secondary school and provide the government officials who later made up the political parties and when they started to argue among themselves whether to become independent or stay united, those who wanted independence supported the Ummah, the Mahdists. And the unionists supported the Mirgani group. Till now these two big parties, sometimes called the traditional parties, are the two major parties.

A third party which was helped by the British in 1952 – 53  was  called the Republican Party. It was asking for independence but for Sudan to be republican. It was  made up of tribal chiefs. It died a natural death when there were a lot of squabbles and quarrels about independence.

The two other parties  were the communists who were very active and the Islamic movement which started.  Most of the forces at the time of independence are still there.  Then a cycle followed: democracy, elected governments, freedom of expression and then suddenly there is a coup. Then after a few years there is a popular uprising and then we start democracy, the parties work again on political programmes and then that is followed by a military coup.

This cycle actually has  negated Sudanese political development. Looking into these cycles we need to start with the first one in 1958 with General Aboud who was the head of the army. At that time the Ummah Prime Minister was in power. When he heard the news that Nasser had a big plot against the Ummah party and they want to remove them not only from power but to exterminate them politically. He was very much upset and General Aboud was persuaded that the country was going to break so he had to make the first coup. 

That coup was encouraged, envisaged and  made by the Ummah Party. And over the six years we come to witness that the Ummah Party which made the coup is the one which suffered most.

We have another spell of democracy since 1964 – 1969 the Ummah Party and the Unionists were active again and they won the elections. One of the new parties was the Communist Party. At that time everyone in the Middle East was going left and they had a very vibrant and strong political party. That party was dissolved and its members were driven away from parliament and they felt they were going to be wiped out so they helped the next coup led by General Nimeri.  General Nimeri unleashed the worse hate against the communists.

After Nimeri in 185 – 89 there was again a political opening up. At time one of the four parties, the Islamic movement was very much active in the political scene and very much gaining in the street, in the popular  fields. Because in the Middle East there will  be questions about whether to continue as a popular democratic party or to continue in an alternative way. There were strong arguments inside the party to continue as they are gaining momentum. They ha 52 members of parliament as opposed to five ten years ago.

Those who were outside the Islamic movement and came to it realised that they were not going to be allowed to continue by the big powers and the neighbouring countries. They would put a full stop. Around them there were events which happened. Algeria had democratic elections and there was a coup by the French which put an end to the Islamic freedom  and movement. Again the same thing happened in Turkey and Tunisia. There were democratic elections and they were brought to an end by a coup.

Those people were brought by the army and this in itself incited a lot of arguments within the Islamic movement. The balance was tipped by what happened in February 1989. The Islamic movement was part of the coalition government but the army was saying we will put an end to the influence of the Islamists. That was the end of that. They thought if they did not act quickly enough they would suffer the faith of Algiers and Tunisia. 

Outside there was lots of rumours about the Baathists. They were very strong and they were working in the army. This led to the acceptance that the only way to get out of the bottleneck was to have a coup.

There was an agreement to change the upper strata of the government so that it would open the way for a democratic change for  political parties and a federated Sudan for presidential elections. Each state in the Sudan should have its own ruler who is  freely elected by his people. He should have the same powers as the president with a parliament and education and health would be delegated to the federal states. 

That did not come out of the blue. It was very clear that outside the capital – Sudan is a very huge country of one million miles – that the different parts whether in the south, east or the west are grumbling. The political parties and the government in the centre do not have enough time to pay for the developments of these states. Many of the boys and girls are now quite educated. They do not want to see development on the periphery  but they want a just and reasonable share of the cake in the centre.

That development did not go through. It has been delayed due to some factors inside the government and the Islamic movement itself.  People did not like to share power hand in hand. Around them they could see lots of people who came by coups and they stayed. Our neighbours had a very strong campaign against the government, calling it terrorist and calling it all sorts of things. It is this campaign which has made people think twice about opening up in their minds some people thought this is something which we cannot guarantee the result of. People do not like change. They are emotionally attached to the present so they don’t want a change, they do not want a delegation of power. 

But one or two things happened during that time. There was the start of a peace agreement with one of the leaders of the south called Mashar. It showed the concern and the importance the Islamic movement attached towards the south. The second thing is the constitution of 1998. The constitution was supported to have been  sorted out by 1993 – 1994 but it was delayed. There were lots of arguments about it. However in spite of everything, the question of freedom of association, freedom of movement, freedom of parties were guarantees even if there is an emergency in the country. A person could only be detained for three days. After that he was either freed or taken to court.

However these are dreams after the troubles – the Islamic movement divided into two in October 1999. In December 1999 the president promulgated an emergency state of law. There was nothing new in this – it was only against the other part of the Islamic party and therefore those three days were extended to a month and then three months after that to be renewed and then after that the security authorities can bring you for trial.

The Islamic movement was not a theoretical thing. There are other issues like the oil. The Islamic movement played a very positive role. It was they who persuaded the Islamic movement who persuaded the Islamic movement in Yemen to take a positive view of Ali Abdallah Saleh plebiscite for the unity of the country. It was they who also played a positive role with the Islamic movement in Jordan. 

Then we come to the tragedy of Darfour. The Prime Minister said there are only 5,000 people dead, the UN said 50,000. One and a half million people were displaced. The government had to use the janjaweed because they were not sure about their own soldiers in the Sudan. The liquidation of Turabi as a way of solving the problem. I think I will leave what to do after brother Abdel Wahab’ presentation.

Saeed Shehabi: I think this comprehensive view of the history of Sudan since the 15^th century has enlightened me very much. There are more questions to be asked about the status quo – what is going on now.

Dr Abdul Wahab El Effendi:  I will make a few comments on project of the present government. The project  was to create a democratic state. There is a lot of confusion about the objectives. To most of us the objectives were not clear. What is clear is that the Islamic movement wanted to take over the state in 1989. Some people thought the aim  was to stop the enemies from hitting back at them and after that they should think about what they should do.

There was a big problem from the beginning because the political structures in  Sudan were determined by a number of factors as in most Arab countries: the tribal, the regional, the sectarian. Politically the Islamic movement was a very tiny organisation, mainly urban educated and from the centre of Sudan. If you want a government for Sudan in a democratic way or even in a regional way you need to have some of these factors on your side.

In 1989 the government was at war with the south. The Islamic movement were the most vocal opponents at the time and they were regarded as extreme opponents of the south. You can’t count on the south to support you. The two major parties were not on side and the tribes were either with this party or that party. What happened at the time the new government started with very tough policies against everybody.  They shut down the trade unions, all newspapers, prevented the people from breathing. Everybody was stopped in their tracks. The National Islamic Front was dissolved. So it became only the government, security forces and the army. 

Following that in 1991 they came up with the idea of the National Congress. It was supposed to be a political organisation in which everybody theoretically is a member. It was a vehicle to replace all political parties. I was told by Dr Turabi when he was in prison he was trying to talk to Sadiq Al Mahdi  and the Islamic party about turning their three parties into one party. This was an idea. They thought that the three parties fundamentally would have an Islamic constituency. If they joined forces they would be able to run the country democratically. Of course the two leaders did not agree to this and when they did not the decision was taken to liquidate their parties and try to address the rank and file directly.

This operation failed. The people adhered to their parties. They did not come over to the party which was created by the government  and at the same time the important function of these parties was to bring together the tribes. The tribes  from the west especially from Darfour and the east were united because they belonged to one sect – one party. So there was some kind of unity. The elite accused the sectarian parties of being divisive and splitting the country. The parties united different tribes from north, south, east and west into one  party. The people from Darfour did not feel excluded because they belonged to the Ummah Party which was in power. When the party is in power you do not feel excluded. But suddenly when the party is not there and you are not in the government it creates a kind of alienation. And people also become more tribal because the tribe becomes a vehicle to which the people adhere.

The current problem, especially in  Darfour, has its origins in this. The tribal government which is isolated politically. In 1995 there was a realisation that this was going to be a problem.  The hope was that the congress would still be the strongest party. I personally do not think this will happen because the party was created by the government. If you do a lot of trade and play a lot of games you could still win elections and arrest your opponents and put them in jail.  There has been infighting in the party itself between the camp led by Turabi. This infighting destroyed the chance for the Islamists to become a coherent political force in the country.

There were differences at the time about how to deal with the crisis. The idea which is sometimes circulated,  that the difference between Turabi, Bashir and Ismail was the difference between the people who wanted democracy and the people who wanted control is not accurate. They all wanted control but in different ways. So  people started playing games. The people who are now the government went to the Ethiopians and also to the Americans to play against their enemies. The other side also played the same game – they went to Garang.

Darfour is a symptom of the crisis of legitimacy and leadership. It was an entity which was conscious of its own identity and various movements were trying to fight for the interests of Darfour. They were not separatists but they wanted more say in the running of their own affairs. In the end most of these movements dissolved into the national movement – some went to the Ummah Party, some went to the Islamist party.

When this government came the parties were shut down. The people from Darfour were sidelined by the Islamist movement and then came the latest split when they sided with the Turabi faction. The people from Darfour have no representation in the centre at all and there is nothing left for them except to fight and go to war.

 The crisis of Darfour is a reflection of the failure to create a political movement in the centre. When people are alienated they go to their tribes.  Darfour has its own internal conflict between the nomads and the settlers. So when the conflict started the government supported the nomads with arms and weapons and asked them to kill.

 *Dr El Amin Mohammad Othman is a Sudanese opposition figure, former Secretary General of the Islamic Dawa Organisation and a practicing specialist in blood diseases.

 *Dr Abdul Wahab El Effendi is a well-known researcher, an Islamic thinker and an independent columnist.