Sudan’s various ethnic groups
By Hussien Arko Menawi

The conflict in South Sudan before secession was one of the longest wars ever witnessed in Sudan. It lasted for more than half a century. In the midst of that bloody conflict, a new vision under the banner of the “New Sudan” was born. The idea had a significant impact on concepts related to the Sudanese crisis. The impact was not only on the Sudanese intellectuals, both in southern Sudan and the north, but also on a wide scale among the Sudanese public. Because of this appealing vision, Dr John Garang became a nationwide political icon. Later, the idea began to crystallize more and more into concepts of deep political significance, such as the catchphrases of “Restructuring Sudan,” or “ periphery and centre.” These catchphrases reinforced the idea that Sudan had not yet been established. When we look at the map of catastrophic events in Sudan, the situation becomes clearer, particularly the war in the south before secession, the wars in other parts of Sudan, the political instability Sudan has experienced over several decades, and what is happening now in present-day Sudan. This bleak picture is a strong indicator that the country is undergoing state-building, but the idea of Sudan as a nation in the process of formation has not yet been widely debated among the political or intellectual classes.

I remember attending a workshop on the Sudanese issue during my time in Kampala. The topic that sparked my interest was what a presenter mentioned about Sudan undergoing state formation. The workshop was exclusively for the Sudanese opposition; the coalition known as the “Sudan Revolutionary Front, SRF”. In that workshop, participants were not limited to senior leadership; they also included some heads of the coalition, namely, Malik Aqar and Yasir Arman(SPLM), Minni Minnawi (SLM/A), and Tom Hajo(DUP). The workshop lasted three days, during which many issues were discussed. A topic presented by an expert from Kenya focused on peacemaking. He made it clear that Sudan was in the process of formation. In his paper, while explaining the concept, he supported the idea with some models and experiences from across Africa, showing how some countries in the continent had undergone transformation.

Almost all discussions had focused intensely on the idea that peace and stability could serve as both an instrument and a strong incentive to pave the way to materialising the vision of a new Sudan. During the discussion, all participants also agreed on the difficult circumstances Sudan was facing. Every member of SRF spoke about the potential barriers to the restructuring of a new Sudan and outlined some difficulties in detail, but, notably, the discussion never highlighted the issue of citizenship in clear terms. As a matter of fact, in present-day Sudan, the issue of equal citizenship is discussed in our political dialogues only once in a blue moon, even though it is considered a decisive factor in the approach to building a modern civic state.

With a flashback of major transformations in human history, the case in Sudan is not exceptional, particularly the dilemma of citizenship. It appears to be a tough challenge, if not identical to, those faced by many nations throughout history. The process of transformation in Sudan has been paralyzed since independence by the conflict of identities and loyalties that resulted from the sharp division in Sudanese society.

Today, the whole country is at a critical juncture of Sudan “ to be or not to be” as the full- scale war of 15 April plunged the country into blood pools, causing millions to flee, and turning entire cities into rubble.

The current war in Sudan is obviously a tangible example of the extent to which Sudanese society is sharply divided on ethnic grounds as well as other forms of identity, and the degree of loyalty that has a disastrous effect on the very core of the idea of equal citizenship in the state. Even though a few nations in world history have undergone processes similar to Sudan’s current dilemma, many have experienced difficulties, and their transitions to modern states were not easy. They were an on-off process, full of hostilities and dynamism, where intellectual efforts were blended with military conflicts to cement a solid foundation for the state based on equal citizenship or call it a nation-building process.

At a certain point in history, during the nation-building process, state institutions function within a network most likely powered by blood bonds (patrimonialism). It is a condition in which an individual usually relies on blood ties to protect himself rather than on the state. When the state-building process reaches this stage, the inevitable consequence is that conflicting loyalties and identities will mushroom, the social fabric will be torn apart, the state will collapse, and citizenship will lose its function. It is the stage where corruption (clientelism) becomes the effective mechanism that determines law enforcement, business activity, employment policies, etc. This is a moment of limited choices: either decisive decisions in favour of nation-building, or the state will disintegrate and give rise to new states.

If we take the experiences of others into account, we can remember, at a time when hostility dominated large parts of Europe, most Renaissance thinkers, such as Jacques Rousseau and David Hume, devoted their efforts to materialize the concept of citizenship within the modern state. In almost all circumstances of social transformation, citizenship remains the cornerstone for achieving justice and equality. As indicated earlier, the issue of equal citizenship in Sudan is rarely a matter of urgency in our political discourse. The classical political discourse in Sudan largely focuses on issues and narratives that do not openly and honestly address the top priorities of nation-building. Addressing the dilemma of citizenship is not only an urgent issue Sudan badly needs but also the top priority. Instead of addressing priorities, our politics always falls into the trap of controversial political theories that require substantial cognitive effort to understand the socio-cultural values on which the ideas were founded and developed.

Yes, the debate on grand narratives such as socialism, secularism, Arab nationalism and political Islam is still a controversial and passionate discussion among scholars and elites, consuming a lot of time and cognitive efforts. However, it is fruitless to delve into such a debate for decades, while the issue of citizenship is deliberately ignored, even though it is the top issue at the heart of the conflict. The idea of achieving equal citizenship within a diverse society is not only a challenge in Sudanese society but also in all divided societies around the globe. Nevertheless, many addressed the problem not by seeking answers beyond human capability, but by applying simple legal and administrative procedures to make it a tangible reality on the ground. Facing a citizenship crisis does not require engaging in an empty political debate akin to the well-known “the chicken and the egg” dilemma; this hackneyed debate over competing narratives can only stir our emotions and exhaust our minds every day, every hour, without yielding any tangible results. In a way or another, sticking to such narratives will not bring about superhuman miracles to address the citizenship crisis in Sudan. In Sudan, every crisis is a mirror reflecting the crisis of citizenship. Exactly, the citizenship crisis leads to other sub-crises that are clearly evident in the context of the social, political, and geographical disparities Sudan has suffered since its independence.

The link here is obvious; the crisis of citizenship and other crises are, as the common saying goes, “All roads lead to Rome”. All crises arise because of a lack of citizenship. Wars in different regions, the numerous military coups that have taken place over time and the volatile political climate that has prevailed since independence, have all clearly mirrored the dilemma of citizenship in Sudan. Even if citizenship in Sudan is not in doubt at the level of constitutions and laws, it is a matter in our everyday lives. It has become a matter of widely unequal degrees due to multiple loyalties and identities. This is true because citizenship is under pressure from conflicting loyalties, whether socio-cultural and political or regional. In Sudan, tribes and geography are two sides of the same coin. Geography here is a synonym for the term homeland, or locally known by the Arabic term (Dar) or in Darfur ( Hawakeer). In many parts of Sudan, it is rare to mention a tribe without also mentioning its geography, and vice versa. Thus, almost all of Sudan is hostage to the reality of a dual and rigid identity based on tribalism and regionalism (Dar). The concept of Geographic and social identity is not new in human culture; it is deeply rooted in most nations worldwide. However, in Sudan, it has long been a political issue. For example, before colonial rule in Sudan, particularly in Darfur, tribal cantons (Hawakeer) were distinctive administrative units of the Darfur Sultanate. The colonial administration added a new dimension to the experience of the hawakeer by making it an essential part of the administrative pyramid in the Sudanese state under the name native administration.

On the side of political parties, if we look at the identity conflict within citizenship from a purely political perspective, the most heated conflict seems to be between two forces: post-colonial national political parties. i.e., the right wing( Islamists) and the left wing ( Communists and Arab Nationalists). In the midst of the political rivalry, both Islamist movements and the leftist, particularly the communist and Arab nationalist parties, are in constant confrontation, and sometimes their hostility develops into bloody battles. These two opponents represent ideology-fed identity that directly impacts citizenship. Indeed, the ideological conflict under the banner of Islamists and socialists is the main political factor behind the instability in Sudan, and it is also one of the primary causes of Sudan’s fragmentation on the basis of an identity colored by ideology; i.e, the infection of political exclusion in Sudan is intrinsic in ideological parties.

To shed more light, from the perspective of African history, the process of transformation in Sudan has been cripled by identity conflicts more than any other model on the continent. The political map of Africa before the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885: at that time, the continent was made up of tribal units, including sultanates and kingdoms. Today, most of Africa has shifted to modern nation-states, which means they have been politically formed from traditional tribal entities. This reminds us of Sudan’s history before the current nation-state, which consisted of independent sultanates and kingdoms scattered across present-day Sudan. The conclusion from the above historical reality is that it is possible for former political entities to transform into a single nation, for disparate ethnic groups to transform into a single nation, and for different geographies to transform into a single state. This assumption is exactly applied to what exists in present-day Sudan. Almost 200 years ago, the current Sudan was a scattered political entity known as the Sultanate of Darfur, Sennar, Tagali and other regions. Now, to some extent, it has developed to a status of being homogenized to the point that the former tribal political entities have become part of history. The challenge now is the social transformation. It is a challenge because blood-based identities pose major obstacles that are too strong to overcome unless many generations pass.