April 27, 2010

Sudan's incumbent president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, has won the country's first multiparty election in twenty years. He received 68% of the votes, though many international election observers said the election was fraught with intimidation, gerrymandering (dividing up districts in a way that will favor a particular party/candidate, at the expense of the other parties/candidates), and fraud. In addition, several of the top opposition parties abruptly dropped out of the race right before the voting started -- which pretty much cleared a path for Bashir to win (see past entry for more information). Although, analysts say that all these efforts by Bashir to ensure that he did not lose were probably unnecessary. Bashir is actually quite popular among many voters because Sudan has experienced rapid economic growth. He's popular among both rural and urban dwellers. In other election news, in the southern Sudan election (southern Sudan is a semi-autonomous region), the incumbent president, Salva Kiir, won 93% of the votes and will remain the president of southern Sudan.

These elections were part of the 2005 American-backed peace treaty between President Bashir's ruling party and the southern rebels. So although the election was marred with fraud in favor of President Bashir, the fact that they even occurred is a milestone. The New York Times summed it up well: "The results were neither surprising nor evidence of a sudden blossoming of democracy. But that does not necessarily mean the election was insignificant. It was essentially Step 1 of what could be a very mess divorce." Next year is when southern Sudan will vote in a referendum on whether they will secede from Sudan. Most expect that they will secede, and the international community is worried about what conflicts may arise. If the referendum does not occur and is held up by President Bashir, or if the referendum does occur and southern Sudan decides to secede, there is fear of conflict. Some fear another war might break out (there have been two long civil wars between the north and the south since Sudan was granted independence in 1956. There have also been incidents of violence since the peace treaty in 2005). It is believed that the Obama administration and other Western leaders have only offered restrained criticism of the recent elections because it is a very politically sensitive and fragile time in Sudan and they don't want to start tension between the two sides -- especially as tensions are mounting in the build-up towards the referendum next year. Western leaders also do not want to confront President Bashir head-on for fear that he would hinder the referendum.

Analysts are already outlining what they think the two post-referendum Sudans will look like ("New Sudan" and "South Sudan" are two possible names for the new country). Analysts suspect that autocracy will be the outcome on both sides. Both sides will essentially be one-party states -- with little democracy and uncompetitive, predictable elections as the norm. Some analysts argue that there will be even less democracy than what there currently is under the flawed coalition government that rules today. If the two sides split, Mr. Bashir (and his ruling party) and Mr. Kiir (and his ruling party) will face less opposition. They'll be able to dominate even more. Mr. Kiir and his party, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement, has tried to silent dissent in southern Sudan, just as Bashir has done. Recently, the SPLM was accused by election observers of harassing and beating up opposition candidates.

Another source of possible conflict if the south secedes is oil. The most productive oil fields are in southern Sudan or along the contentious and unresolved north-south border. This could result in land disputes. Alternatively, an analyst for the International Crisis Group argues that the oil might be the glue that keeps the two sides civil to each other. There is an oil pipeline that runs from southern Sudan to northern Sudan, and this means the two sides are reliant on each other. The analyst said, "As both regimes rely so heavily on oil revenues, finding a suitable arrangement is a mutual interest and a matter of political survival." (Full Story)