The Administrative Referendum of Darfur, Waste of Time and Money

News had it that the government of Sudan has just released the result of the referendum that took place in Darfur last week. 97% of voters voted in favour of the current state of affairs, where the region is divided into 5 states.

I am always asked by my non-Sudanese friends about what it means to have referendum in Darfur. Is it something similar to that of South Sudan? Well, many people inside Sudan are probably confused as well.

The idea of referendum in Darfur is an integral part of both Abuja Agreement, May 5, 2006, articles 55 and 56, and Doha Agreement, January 10, 2012, articles 75 and 76. Both agreements which were signed between Sudan government and Darfur rebel groups equivocally stipulate that the final status of Darfur, whether to be many states or one state, shall be determined through a referendum.

It looks like government is excited about having conducted the “referendum” and fulfilled one of the requirements of the two mentioned agreements!! The fact of the matter is that the whole things is cooked and the government did it the way wanted to get the results it wanted. This has nothing to do with peace and stability in the region.

The question is: does the referendum matter to ordinary Darfurian citizens? The fact that the result is 97% in favour of the current state of affairs in the region does not mean that the process was rigged. It simply means there was complete lack of transparency in the whole process. Ordinary citizens were supposed to be given a balanced perspective, in order to know the pros and cons of having one single state versus various states. On the one hand, the opposition boycotted the process because of lack of freedoms, while civil society organisations were absent. On the other hand, government dominated the scene and bombarded the people with its viewpoint through the various local media outlets.

When it comes to the pros and cons of single state versus multiple states, the government favours the current states of affairs for purposes of control. There has always been suspicion among the ruling elite in Khartoum that Darfur is pregnant with a tendency to session, given that it had remain a fully-fledged State for centuries before joining the current Sudan in the 19th century. This suspicion explains the reason why during the time of general Nimeri (1969–1983) governors were appointed within their own provinces except Darfur whose governors were appointed from other provinces. Through the current state of divide and rule, government is able to buy loyalties of tribes and can play on the differences of the various ethnic groups.

Through ages Darfur has been governed as a one single state; during the colonial and post-colonial era, with each tribe or ethnic group having its own tribal land. With current government taking over in a military coup in1989, a new system of government was introduced following the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPU) in 2005 between SPLA and government, and Darfur had to be divided into 5 states, as the case with other provinces in the country. This resulted in infringement on long-standing tribal laws. Tribal lands were now becoming part of other states, hence the tribal conflicts. The situation got worse with negative interference of central government, when some tribes who had once been hosted by other tribes were now given powers over the lands of the host. This is the main source of most tribal conflicts in Darfur. Furthermore, a new breed of pro-government tribal leaders are given powers over traditional leaders at the best of local governors, which agitated political squabbling not only among the different tribes but within same tribe. Worse still is the government decision in mid 1990s to arm certain tribes (Janjaweed) who claim Arab ancestry in order to fight rebel groups who on the other hand claim African ancestry. Instead of fighting the rebels, the Janjaweed attached villages and took over arable lands thus forcing villagers in their hundreds of thousands into displacement, most of whom are currently living in camps.

If given the true perspective of the situation in an atmosphere of freedoms and a well-debated discourse with participation of community based organisations, the ordinary Darfurian citizen will go for the One-State option. The One-State option mitigates tribal frictions and political polarization, minimizes over-spending of public money on an army of jobless politicians, attracts foreign investment to the region and allows Darfur to speak with one voice. In addition, one-state government will have the powers to attend to local problems which in most cases transcend the ability of central government due to distance.

However, the referendum has wasted a lot of money and time, and for Darfur to come out of the mess it is currently going through it requires a miracle.

amin&?pacX�