Categories
Conflict Areas
Blog Series
Our Campaigns & Initiatives
Announcements
Archive
- February, 2012 (21)
- January, 2012 (53)
- December, 2011 (55)
- November, 2011 (69)
- October, 2011 (51)
Blog Roll
- Africa in Transition
- Africa24 Media
- Across the Aisle
- Burning Billboard
- Change.org - Human Rights
- Chris Blattman's Blog
- Condition Critical
- Congo Siasa
- From the Front Line
- Genocide Intervention Network
- Huffington Post
- ICC Observers
- IJCentral
- Impunity Watch
- In Situ
- Institute for War & Peace Reporting
- Opinio Juris
- Meskel Square
- Mia Farrow
- National Security Network Democracy Arsenal
- Nicholas Kristof, The New York Times
- Promise of Engagement
- Pulitzer Center - Untold Stories
- Resolve Uganda
- Save Darfur
- South Sudan Info
- STAND
- SudanReeves.org
- TakePart
- Think Progress
- UN Dispatch
- Voices from the Field
- Voices on Genocide Prevention
- War Crimes
- WITNESS
- Woodrow Wilson Center
- World is Witness
- Wronging Rights
What Does Elite Bargaining In Sudan Mean For Its People?
Last week Sudan’s two main parties, the ruling NCP and its southern counterpart the SPLM, reached a major deal on the allocation of parliamentary seats. The two parties agreed on giving the South 40 extra seats, or, 27 percent of Sudan’s parliament.
This careful number falls below 28 percent, the number of seats awarded to the South’s ruling party under the 2005 peace deal, but just above 26 percent, the number of votes needed to block any attempts by the NCP to amend the constitution. In other words, come April, the new southern bloc voted into parliament will have the power to bar any NCP attempt at writing the referendum out of the constitution. The deal also allocated extra seats to two oil-rich border regions, Abyei and Southern Kordofan.
This 27 percent compromise may also be the start to resolving the longstanding census dispute between North and South, with the two sides arguing over the true population figure for South Sudan. Census results released last year calculated that the South’s population was only 21 percent of Sudan’s population—a number highly disputed by the southern government, who insisted that the South made up a third of the total population. One reason why this number was so significant was that the population proportion would translate into the proportion of seats, or political power, the South would be given. Now that the two parties have essentially reached an agreement on power-sharing, it remains to be seen whether the magical 27 percent will become the de facto number used for the census, and thus for other issues of consequence—i.e. determining the outcome of the referendum vote.
On a larger scale, the 27 percent compromise represents continued deal-making at the elite NCP-SPLM level. While this behind-the-door bargaining may offer short-term peace and stability for the country, it also means that the two parties have entered into a pact of maintaining each other’s respective political monopolies—a distasteful and unsustainable outcome for a Sudanese population whose varied opinions and priorities cannot possibly be encompassed within two political agendas.
Other signs point clearly to the two parties’ determination to remain not only in power, but be the only ones in power. A report issued by Human Rights Watch in January documented widespread oppression and harassment of political opposition by both the NCP and the SPLM. In a letter sent yesterday to the E.U. Election Observation Mission to Sudan, Human Rights Watch said that without looking at “entire human rights situation and how it is affecting the elections environment,” observers would not be doing their jobs right. In other words, let’s take a step back, look at the entire situation, and remember that whatever agreements are made, it’s ultimately about the 41,347,723 (this number is probably disputed too) Sudanese people.
Photo: Children from Sudan's volatile Abyei region









This article is interesting because from a theoretical/idealistic point of view it is correct. Who sits in parliament should be determined by the voters.
The problem is that when you know the elections will likely be rigged in favor of the NCP, there have to be safeguards in place so that the NCP isn't able to take over the entire state and impose their agenda, which - based on its history and current behavior - would mean destroying and marginalizing anyone that is not Arab.
As a party that fundamentally believes in a democratic, secular state and respect for human rights, the SPLM has strong reasons to protect the CPA and the interim constitution in Parliament, not the least of which is to protect the South's right to determine its future in 2011.
So this deal is not ideal, but it is something that provides a certain level of resistance to the complete erosion of peace and justice in Sudan under the regime of the NCP.
As the people of Sudan work hard to create the country they want, I would imagine the NCP will be removed and these types of deals will not be necessary.