Sudan’s days as Africa’s biggest country are now over. Starting tomorrow and for the rest of the week, almost four million people will stream to polling places in the southern part of the country to vote in a referendum that’s essentially guaranteed to split the country in two. This vote has been a long time in the making, and while it doesn’t necessarily mean the end of bitterness and strife, it does provide an opportunity for the two quite different parts of the country to develop along their own paths in a new and possibly peaceful manner.

In recent days, southerners have been pouring in to the region’s capital, Juba and other towns and villages, from the north and from exile in other countries. The officials registering them have been extremely busy, so much so that the authorities had to extend registration until the last minute. The United Nations is keenly interested in how it works and has appointed a high-level panel to observe the voting. It is headed by a former president of Tanzania, Ben Mkapa, who is confident the vote will work out despite limited resources and organisational difficulties.

Although you might expect the central government to object, the president, Omar al-Bashir, went to Juba on Tuesday to reassure the people of the south: “I personally will be sad if Sudan splits. But at the same time I will be happy if we have peace in Sudan between the two sides. I am going to celebrate your decision, even if your decision is secession.”

The question posed to voters is extremely simple – secession or union. A simple majority is all that’s required for the winning side. The only rider is that 60 per cent of those registered must vote. If 60 per cent don’t show up, the vote will be held again after a set period. If the result is what most expect it to be, it will set off a six-month process of negotiations which could lead to a declaration of independence in July.

The referendum is a direct product of a Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed in Kenya exactly five years ago by the National Congress Party and the Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Movement/Army. It’s known as the Machakos Protocol, after the town in Kenya where the discussions took place. The protocol is a comprehensive document, covering the sharing of economic assets and power, on arranging security as well as separate treaties covering disputes in specific areas of the country.

It is a document of considerable intricacy, but this is only natural in a country with so many regional interests and differences, not to mention the over-riding differences between the predominantly Arab/Islamic north and the mostly Black/Christian/Animist south. In addition to calling for a referendum for the southerners, it also prescribed one for a small, oil-rich region known as Abyei which abuts the northern side of the border with the south as well as the troubled Darfur region. But there have been so many organisational and procedural delays that no one knows when it will take place. Consultative votes are also to be held in a couple of other areas where there has been unrest.

Strife and conflict go way back

Plenty of bitterness remains in Sudan. We have all heard of the atrocities committed in Dharfur. That’s a region in the western part of what will now be northern Sudan, where a nasty bunch of Arab/Muslim characters called the Janjaweed have been terrorising and butchering the local population – mostly black and Christian. The government says 10,000 people have lost their lives in this conflict, but outside agencies put the figure as high as 300,000, and thousands upon thousands have been dislocated; large numbers have fled to neighbouring countries as refugees.

There is nothing new or recent about strife and conflict in Sudan. About 30,000 years ago, Nubian culture was established in the north and was left largely alone until around 4000 BCE when the vibrant Egyptian civilisation gradually assumed control. From about the sixth century AD, Christians moved into the area and were dominant until the 13th century when Arab nomads infiltrated and gradually superseded the Christians.

A collection of independent kingdoms and principalities ran the show until 1820, when neighbouring Egypt overran the region and forced them all together. This arrangement held for 65 years, then a religious leader, Mohammed ibn Abdalla, led a nationalist uprising which lasted a mere four years. Then the Mahdi (“expected ones” as they called themselves) was put down by a joint Egyptian/British force. This arrangement continued until 1956. Which explains why, when I was at school, the atlases of the day all described the huge territory as the “Anglo-Egyptian Sudan”.

In 1953 London and Cairo decided to allow Sudan to govern itself and independence came on January 1, 1956. But peace continued to be elusive. Sudan consists of a complex mix of racial, linguistic and religious groups, something requiring flexible and considerate leadership. From the start, the government in the capital, Khartoum, was led by Arabs who reneged on promises they had made to people in the south. Southern army officers mutinied and set off a civil war which dragged on until 1972. An army officer, Colonel Gaafar Muhammad Nimeiri, took power in a military coup in 1969 and engaged in negotiations sponsored by Emperor Haile Selassie of neighbouring Ethiopia which ended the hostilities. But his actions at home triggered hostilities of their own. He abolished Parliament, outlawed all political parties and installed himself as president.

What caused all the trouble to come back was his decision in 1983 to institute traditional Islamic law (Sharia) and his declaration of a state of emergency to make sure that Sharia was widely applied. People were now subjected to punishments such as public lashing for possessing alcohol and the draconian amputation of hands for theft. Although he ended the state of emergency the next year, he instituted a new system of judges to carry out the aims of Sharia. These actions provoked the SPLM to re-start its revolt.

Future traps and pitfalls

Assuming that the south will vote to secede, the future holds many potential traps and pitfalls. And oil is at the centre of everything. Sudan has been producing oil for about a decade, and its exports have increased six-fold in that period. Oil accounts for about 90 per cent of Sudan’s export earnings and for almost all the budget for the south except for a small amount of foreign aid. It makes up about two-thirds of the budget for all of Sudan. The two sides have not agreed on how the revenues from both parts of the country are to be shared. An agreement which expires in July splits the proceeds 50-50.

A major problem for the south is that about 80 per cent of the oil now comes from that region, but all of it is exported from Port Sudan in the north. The south has plans to ship the oil by alternate routes, but since it is land-locked, the new government will have to negotiate pipeline access to the sea with Ethiopia or Kenya. That will be years away, and in the meantime Khartoum will have considerable leverage in negotiating future revenue-sharing.

But such considerations can’t stand in the way of nation-building.

keeble.mack@sympatico.ca