Promoting Democracy in Sudan

To improve the overall conditions of the Sudanese state, and to realize the potential of your country, democracy must be promoted and encouraged. The ultimate goal of this proposal is to promote democracy and human rights for the citizens of Sudan. There are many facets of the current Sudanese government and economy that could be improved by the implementation of good governance. Good governance promotes democratic ideals and with democracy comes civil liberties, which have been long removed, from the people of Sudan. The intention of this policy brief is to provide realistic suggestions to improve economic policies, political processes, judicial processes, national policies, security, and international relations through the means of good governance.

The civil war has been going on since Sudan’s independence from Britain in 1956, with the exception of years 1972-1983, when the southern Darfur region of Sudan was autonomous. Unfortunately, under British rule Sudan had been divided between the north and the south, the borders were literally closed. This physical barrier between the two groups seemed to polarize them even more and the civil war in Sudan was on its way after their independence from Britain. Southern Sudanese are predominately non-Arabic and non-Muslim, creating a clash with the Islamic government of Sudan. British occupation implemented an indirect ruling system in Sudan; allowing local governments to distribute powers, rather than having a strong federal system. Powers were scattered throughout Sudan, between religious leaders and village leaders. This system of governance was introduced to them by the British and was cause for many disagreements. The lack of education and experience possessed by the national leaders of Sudan hurt the development of democratic values and the overall conditions of Sudan.

Some historians and political thinkers believe the civil war in Sudan to be explained partly by foreign oil companies’ explorations and developments throughout much of the southern region. It seems that the Sudan People’s Liberation Army became the armed opposition group that it is today because they had to defend their territory in the south. One of the reasons Sudan People’s Liberation Army began their violent campaign was because Chevron was going to make a pipeline from the southern region of Sudan, connecting to the ports along the northern border in 1984. The concerns of the global economy dominate political decision-making in Sudan, at the expense of the poor. There is a link between human rights violations, from the Sudanese armed forces and various government aided militias, and foreign oil companies’ involvements. The government forcibly moves groups of villagers to allow oil companies the rights to extract oil. Foreign oil companies expect the government’s security forces to protect the oil fields and their staff from angry villagers and civilians. Oil companies need to be held responsible for creating hostile environments for innocent civilians, whose human rights are violated frequently by the government and foreign corporations. Amnesty international provides suggestions to oil companies about how to effectively ensure the rights of citizens in regions being explored. Amnesty International encourages corporate accountability; although, there is a problem with both the government of Sudan and the foreign oil companies; neither group seems concerned about the well being of civilians. Militias and private security forces have hired children to protect the oil fields in Sudan, children need to be in school.

The Sudanese Liberation movement is a violent struggle in the Darfur region of Sudan. The centralized nature of the current government in Sudan does not protect citizens or provide many benefits to those citizens who live outside the capital, Khartoum. In February of 2003, the Sudan Liberation Army attacked government troops at the airport of Al-Fasher, the capital of the North Darfur state. The Sudan Liberation Army claimed this attack was their response to a number of disagreements they have with the current government of Sudan and the lack of leadership in their country. The Sudan Liberation Army expanded on this by stating three distinct complaints: the government has failed to protect citizens from Nomadic groups that have attacked villages in the Darfur region; the economy in the Darfur region has also been ignored by the government, resulting in poverty and worse conditions than in other regions of the country; marginalization was the third complaint, confining Darfur citizens to the lower classes and poor social standings. Many victims of the ongoing acts of violence are innocent citizens who are bombed by the government