I will start this piece borrowing a line from one of the greatest African speech made by President Thabo Mbeki. Comrades, on a day like this (the symbolic referendum vote in Southern Sudan) I am proud to say that “I am an African!” the blood of Africa flows in my vein.
I will start this piece borrowing a line from one of the greatest African speech made by President Thabo Mbeki. Comrades, on a day like this (the symbolic referendum vote in Southern Sudan) I am proud to say that “I am an African!” the blood of Africa flows in my vein.
I cannot hide my African identity for my skin, nose, hair and thick ascent defines me as African. The war, underdevelopment, corruption and social vices in Africa drive me to give up my African identity. Still I remain optimistic that change will come in Africa. I remain convinced that soon war and poverty will give way for peace and prosperity. I am still committed to Africa, I foresee good things coming out of Africa and so let nobody challenge me when I say I am an African!
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
When I read of Southern Sudan referendum that is expected to decide whether the region should remain united with northern Sudan or secede to establish an independent State, it reminded me of a discussion I had with another African sometime ago where he was telling me to stop wasting my time being optimistic for “nothing good will ever come out of Africa. Africa is a cursed continent” he said. So after reading the article, I gladly picked my phone and called my dear friend to tell him of the good thing that is coming out of Africa, Southern Sudan is holding a referendum to decide whether to secede or remain part of Sudan. This referendum is part of 2005 Naivasha agreement between the Khartoum central government and the Sudan People's Liberation Army Movement (SPLAM). I also told my friend that President Omar Al-Bashir agreed to "renew the commitment of the north to respect the outcome of the referendum and to establish relations of cooperation and collaboration with the south, in case the south secedes and becomes an independent country." Finally I told him that history is about to be made in Sudan and I reminded him of what I said during our previous discussion that good, still comes out of Africa.
African and western political pundits are of the opinion that majority will vote for secession. As much as it pains that this is coming after much shedding of blood, it is a welcomed development, at least it shows that Africa can keep peace agreements for if “Aburi and Lome Peace Accord” have been kept by Nigeria and Sierra Leone respectively. Nigeria will not have witnessed three years of civil war and the death toll in Sierra Leone civil war would have been mitigated. The referendum, which is now in process started on January 9 2011 and expected to last for the whole week is one of the major provisions of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) signed in Nairobi on January 9, 2005 to end decades of civil war that engulfed the largest country in Africa. It is expected that 4,100,060 voters will vote in the referendum. Let me give a brief history of Sudan civil war that started long ago before the Darfur conflict.
The First Sudanese Civil War also known as the Anyanya rebellion (the name of the rebels that started the rebellion) was from 1955 to 1972. Officially the war started in Southern Sudan between the North and South as a result of the South demanding more regional autonomy. However the war originated as a result of 1946 British Imperialist amalgamation of Northern and Southern Sudan. Northern Sudan was controlled by Muslims (culturally affiliated to Arabs) while Southern Sudan was dominated by Christians and animists (culturally affiliated to sub-Saharan Africa). Prior to 1946 under an ANGLO-EGYPTIAN alliance, both regions (North and South) were governed independently by the British Imperialist and the Egyptian government. This unholy alliance is nothing but an arrangement between British Imperialist and Egypt to share the spoils of Sudan after Britain helped Egypt to recapture Sudan (check out http://countrystudies.us/sudan/15.htm if you are interested for more information). As a result of the amalgamation of Northern and Southern Sudan due mostly from Northern pressure and Arab criticism of the British Imperialist Southern policy, Arabic became the language of government in the south, and northerners began to hold positions in the south. The Southern policy was a policy that tends to separate the North from the South and stop the spread of Islam in Southern Sudan. The decision to make Arabic the official language of administration is no difference with the imposition of Afrikaans language on South African township schools by Afrikaners APARTEHID regime that led to the 1976 schoolchildren's uprising in which innocent children were killed. In Sudan, as expected the influential Southerners, tutored in British English hated the change especially as they were kept out of their own government (No surprises as you cannot come to a man’s house and take control of him, he will fight you with any available resources within his means). It is also worthy to mention that most of the civil wars in Africa today have its root to this unholy alliance that occurred in British and French colonies.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });
The British Imperialist continued to develop Northern Sudan, while Southern Sudan remain underdeveloped and the British government justified their action that Southern Sudan is not yet ready to embrace modern civilization. The issue is that Southern Sudan has different autonomous tribe which makes it difficult to be governed (just like the Ibo’s in Southern Nigeria) unlike Northern Sudan that has a central government under the control of the Emir, a model that suited British colonialist. Unequal development and underdevelopment is the monster causing civil wars in African nations today and it stemmed from the colonial rule. If Lord Lugard have not reached a pact with Northern Nigeria emirs to protect Islamic civilization which subsequently shut them off from western civilization and development the huge underdevelopment, illiteracy and the “almajiris” in Northern Nigeria will not have arose. To be fair some British officers foresaw the impending war between North and South Sudan and vehemently protested against this unholy alliance of North and South. However assurances were given of preserving Southern cultures and allowing them play more roles in post independent Sudan. But there is also issue of personality clashes among the British officers in the South and North this culminated in the replacement of British colonialist officers sympathetic to the South with Northern stooges. It is noteworthy that when the government replaced the British colonialist officers with several hundreds of Sudanese only 4 southerners were among this elite group. This deepened the animosity between the North and South as the Southern leaders lost hope of a united Sudan. The British Imperialist can defend themselves that other sections of Nigeria (though half heartedly but to get independence) agreed with Northern Nigerians quest to remain united in post independent Nigeria but the British Imperialist is the architect of the Sudan civil war. The imperialist has no interest in the peaceful cohabitation of Sudan except for its economic importance, for they knew the consequences of their actions.
Not long after February 1953, when United Kingdom and Egypt reached an agreement to grant independence to Sudan, tensions started to flare over what will become of the unholy alliance of the North and South. With the south already suspicious of the Northerners reneging on their promise to grant them more autonomy, in August 1955(prior to the historical 1 January, 1956 independence day), the British controlled Southern army, in collaboration with local police, mutinied in Torit and other southern towns, killing Northerners including government officials. Though the Khartoum government restrained this uprising, the leftover of this force that escaped organized and started the guerilla warfare that culminated in the civil war. The outcome is no different from the post independence Nigerian civil war and other countries of Africa.
In 1972, agreement was reached to address the issues that started the first Sudanese civil war but not much was done to avert the second war hence in 1983; Sudan again erupted into another civil war (second Sudanese civil war or Anyanya II). According to US Committee for refugee’s paper, the Sudanese second civil war is said to have the highest civilian death toll since World War II. In January 2005, a Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed in Nairobi upon which the 2011 referendum is based.
I took time to go through this history to show that African people share a common history. I cannot remember any other post independent African country that has used referendum as a peaceful way to resolve sectional politics that have engulfed Africa. The Sudanese referendum is a step in the right direction in settling sectional differences in sovereign nations but I must make it clear that this is not a call for secession by sections in African countries. History have shown that the cost of secession whether through referendum or civil war is too high for Africans to bear. It involves a lot of blood shedding and Africans can no longer bear the shedding of innocent blood. History have also shown that in all of Africa the colonialists (French, British, Portuguese, Americans, etc) failed to take African’s different ethnic, religion, and language differences into consideration before integrating them together. But must we continue to dwell on all that the colonialist did wrong? The answer is ABSOLUTE NO. It’s time for Africa to move ahead.
The different sections in Africa can live together peacefully as brothers and sisters. All that African people ask their rulers is to create a favorable environment and infrastructure for them to use their God given talent and natural resources to make a living. If proper checks and balances are put in place the Kenya man does not care if he is ruled by a Lou man neither are Tanzanians if ruled by a Chagga man or Ghanaians if a Guan man is the president. But all sections must be involved as part of the political process in their country.
Most African countries have too much power concentrated in the centre. A situation where the federal government controls all the resources and allocates monthly allowances to the constituent states does not augur well with Africa. It leads to a situation where all the tribes scramble to be on top of the central government since that means more opportunities and resources for development within the tribe of the President or Prime Minister. I have always advocated for Africa to practice true federalism, let each section of a country use their available natural resources to develop. Natural resources abound in Africa and can be found in different sections of African countries which if well utilized will develop all sections at the same rate. However the constituent state will rather wait for “manna” from the federal government instead of generating revenue from available resources in their area. These constituent states will immediately jump and shout marginalization for failure of the “manna” to fall from the federal government. In countries where natural resources are not distributed proportionally, it becomes imperative for all sections to negotiate and agree on how sections rich in natural resources will contribute for the equal development of other sections. But this must be done through an honest discussion and not by threat or coercion. Moreover it will be in the interest of those sections, rich in natural resources, since inequality breeds hatred and therefore riots and war. Israel knows better about this.
Africa’s political situation may require African solution to resolve it, apart from the fact that zoning or rotation of political office is antithetical to democracy, I do not advocate for it. This is a band aid solution; moreover minorities will still never attain political positions since they will be dominated by the major tribes. I will give an example of this scenario with Nigeria. Nigeria decided to rotate the presidency between the North and South. Northern Nigeria is dominated by the Hausa/Fulani tribe with the Kanuri, middle belt and others as minorities. The south is dominated by the Ibo’s and Yoruba with the Niger Delta as the minorities. It therefore meant that Hausa/Fulani will always rule when it is the northerner’s term, then power is rotated between the Ibo’s and Yoruba’s when it’s the southerners turn to rule. Even among this dominated ethnic groups the Ilaje people will cry foul against Ijebu man, Ibo Roman Catholic will complain of Anglican domination. If you decide to rotate it among the tribes, then this becomes impossible with about 300 ethnic tribes. The same scenario will play out in all other Africa countries.
We welcome President Al Bashir recognition of the indispensable right of Southern Sudan to choose to secede or remain part of the union of Sudan, since unity "could not be forced by power." One wonders whether President Al Bashir is trying to appease Western countries and International Criminal Court that issued arrest warrant for him as a result of Darfur genocide. How I wish African leaders practice what they preach. There is nothing wrong when a section of a sovereign nation decides to call it quits as is the case in Canada (1980 Quebec referendum) but it MUST be done in a peaceful manner. Still, Sudan needs to address the issues in Darfur, and the status of oil-rich Abyei a hotly contested area due to its abundance of natural resources. Abyei accorded "special administrative status" is a historical link between northern and Southern Sudan. There was suppose to be a concurrent referendum in Abyei on whether to become part of Southern Sudan but it was postponed due to boundary conflict and citizen’s rights. Watch out as oil rich Abyei will play a vital role in what becomes of post Southern referendum Sudan.
African countries especially Nigeria must learn a lesson from South Sudan referendum. It’s time that sections of African countries come together and decides their fate. Already Ivory Coast is embroiled in political stalemate that is playing Alassane Ouattara north against the President Laurent Gbagbo South base. Alassane Ouattara is the internationally recognized winner of the 2010 election. Ivory Coast Electoral Commission declared Ouattara as the winner of the election while the Constitutional Council made up of corrupt Gbagbo men declared Gbagbo winner by nullifying some of the results of the election. Nigeria the most populous black nation in the world goes to poll in April 2011 and the issue of zoning the presidency is about to tear the country apart. The ethnic bigots in Nigeria hiding under the banner of proto –nationalism ethnic groups (Arewa, Ohaneze, Afenifere, etc) including the groups that metamorphosed into political parties (APGA, ANPP, CPC, DPP, etc) need to come out openly and have an honest discussion on the future of Nigeria instead of continuous threat of “to your tents oh Israel” (baptismal name for secession) in the name of zoning. The same is true of the Kikuyu and Luo of Kenya and all other ethnic tribes in Africa.
Like Martin Luther had a dream of end of racism in America, so do I have a dream where sections of Africa with different religion, languages and culture lives together as one in peace and unity. A dream of Africa using its abundant natural resources to make a great and prosperous continent.
Ositadimma Ejelike lives in Halifax, Nova Scotia and has a blog Monday Maxim @ www.pearl7diamond.com
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });