Observers remained in their polling stations throughout the day and reported through their respective county and state coordinators to data collection and analysis centers for SuNDE in Juba and SuGDE in Khartoum, where the reports were verified for quality and analyzed impartially according to standards for non-partisan election observation. SuGDE and SuNDE shared their observations and findings and developed this fact-based statement, released simultaneously at press conferences in Khartoum and Juba, respectively.

Below are the report’s executive summary and a selection from the 15 graphs included in the Statement. the report is divided into two parts, one by the SUGDE of activities in the north and the other by SuNDE of activities in the south. This report and others are available in our reference library.

(Source: Election Statement by The Sudanese Group for Democracy and Elections (SuGDE) and the Sudanese Network for Democratic Elections (SuNDE) by National Democratic Institute for International Affairs - April 24, 2010)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• The April 2010 elections were a requirement for moving forward with implementing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). However, the elections did not fulfill the Interim Constitution’s and CPA’s aspirations for democratic transition and did not adequately meet the requirements of the National Elections Commission rules and regulations. Sudanese citizens demonstrated their desire for democracy without a doubt through their registering, voting and participating in lively political debate in these elections. Extraordinary efforts are required to achieve democratic governance, and SuNDE and SuGDE will seek to contribute constructively to securing peace and democratic progress. The hopes of citizens should not be allowed to slip away.
• SuNDE and SuGDE observed that the National Elections Commission (NEC) failed to adequately plan and prepare for the elections. The polling stations observed often lacked essential election materials to open on time or ran out of essential materials during the polling process. The inefficiency of the NEC to develop or publicize the polling station list and final voters’ lists in a timely manner also caused substantial confusion and potentially the disenfranchisement of a significant number of voters.

(Source: Election Statement by The Sudanese Group for Democracy and Elections (SuGDE) and the Sudanese Network for Democratic Elections (SuNDE) by National Democratic Institute for International Affairs - April 24, 2010)

• SuGDE and SuNDE observed that while the administration of the elections was deficient throughout Sudan, in Southern Sudan the administration of the elections was observed to be more problematic.
• SuGDE and SuNDE observed several positive aspects to the elections. Voters turned out in large numbers and conducted themselves in a largely peaceful manner. Polling officials showed a strong commitment to fulfilling their responsibilities, particularly given the difficult circumstances. Thousands of citizens volunteered with civic organizations to observe the election and stayed through all 7 days of the polling and the counting process.
• SuNDE and SuGDE recognize that this was the first election in Sudan since the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and understand that the complexity of the electoral process and difficult logistical environment of Sudan made running this election challenging.

(Source: Election Statement by The Sudanese Group for Democracy and Elections (SuGDE) and the Sudanese Network for Democratic Elections (SuNDE) by National Democratic Institute for International Affairs - April 24, 2010)

• However, SuGDE and SuNDE recorded significant flaws in the election process at the polling stations observed
• SuNDE recognized that in South Sudan the political parties actively participated in the election however, SuNDE observers noted a need for parties, candidates, and their supporters or agents to better understand their roles in the electoral process, particularly regarding interfering with the polling process
• SuGDE notes that in the North of Sudan leading political parties boycotted the elections which deprived citizens of choice and made the elections confusing and less competitive.
• SuNDE was concerned by the troubling number of incidents of intimidation and harassment reported by its observers in South Sudan, particularly by party and candidate agents and supporters, and unknown and unauthorized security personnel.

(Source: Election Statement by The Sudanese Group for Democracy and Elections (SuGDE) and the Sudanese Network for Democratic Elections (SuNDE) by National Democratic Institute for International Affairs - April 24, 2010)

• SuGDE was concerned by incidents of violence, intimidation and harassment in Southern Kordofan, Western Darfur, Northern Darfur and Sinnar
• SuGDE and SuNDE are deeply concerned that the electoral process did not meet citizen’s expectations and failed to fully embrace democratic principles at the polling stations observed
• SuNDE and SuGDE urge all election stakeholders to learn from these elections and apply those lessons to improve the transparency and credibility of future elections, including the 2011 Referendum.

Census and Voter Registration

A Juba resident makes her registration for the Natonal Elections in April 2010, by Bonifacio Taban.

There are prerequisites to conducting a democratic election that include a census of the population to determine who can vote and in which electoral constituency. The Sudan census has been contested by the SPLM and analysed by others.

Citizens are required to add themselves to the voter list during the voter registration process, followed by a verification of the voter list after its publication. The Carter Center provided observers to provide an impartial assessment of the process. Registration of political party lists with their representatives ended yesterday after a seven-day extension.Â

Political Campaigning

Once the politicians place themselves inside the arena of an election, democratic principles require than they are able to voice their positions in an election campaign. This is when they can criticize current government practices and provide an alternative approaches to governence that will make the electorate choose them on a ballot. In Sudan, elections campaigning begins on February 13 and ends on April 9, two days before voting begins.

The Sudan Electionnaire is an English/Arabic quiz that will compare your view on 30 debated issues with the positions of the 16 main parties for the upcoming elections. Once the set of questions are completed a ranking shows how your answers match party programmes. A very interesting tool that was released by The Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in Sudan, the University of Khartoum Institute of Peace Research with funding from the UK Department for International Development.

Media Coverage

Thousands of wind-up and solar-powered blue radios distributed by NDI in Sudan are bringing a dialogue about national issues to isolated communities. (courtesy: National Democratic Institute)

Even before campaigning starts, the media’s role in election coverage is crucial. Radio, television, print, online media and ‘under-the-village-tree’ journalists act as messengers between the voters and those seeking votes. Journalists provide analysis and perspective to the public debate and hold politicians accountable to their proposed platforms and promises as the campaign progresses. They also provide an amplified mouthpeice to citizens wishing to express their opinions to the politicians and other citizens. Sudan Votes, another website affiliated with Sudan Electionnaire, has election reporting resources including a media code of conduct, a Reuters Reporter’s Guide to Election Coverage (.pdf), election broadcast guidelines, and media election process reference material.

Voter Education

Sudan has not held elections in 24 years and a civil war raged in the country for most of those years, so the election process is not well known by the Sudanese. With literacy rates among the lowest in the world (see chart below), particualrly in poorly developed Southern Sudan and Darfur, voter education is a significant challenge if the April elections are to be fair and democratic. The International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) prepared a Sudan Civic and Voter Education Baseline Study (.pdf) in 2008 with funding from the Canadian International Development Agency.

Electoral System

Typical elections might require the selection of one, two or three representatives. (view a clip, below, of the first presidential election in Afghanistan,  in 2004) In Southern Sudan, each electorate will have twelve (12) representatives to choose from for three levels of government.

Three votes will be cast to select 1) the President of the Republic of Sudan, 2) the President of the Government of Southern Sudan, and 3) the respective State Governor.

North versus South Sudan Statistics (courtesy: Oxfam, UN)

Southern Sudanese will have three votes to cast for each of the following three legislatures: 1) the National Assembly in Khartoum, 2) the Southern Sudan Legislative Assembly in Juba, and 3) the State Legislative Assembly in their respective State. Each of the three legislature votes is divided into three components: 1) 60% of the members are elected to represent geographical constituencies at their respective levels, 2) 25% of the seats are to be filled by women members elected by proportional representation from party lists at state level, and 3) 15% of the members are elected by proportional representation also from party lists at the state level.

Considering the above literacy and education rates in Southern Sudan, it will take considerable effort to educate the average electorate about the details of such a complex ballot system.

Ballot Papers

Drafting ballot papers that will allow illiterate citizens to make their selection is a design challenge of mammoth proportions. There are at least sixteen political parties vying for votes in Sudan. Many of the parties are represented on the twelve seperate ballots in the South. Each ballot will have to distinguish each representative from the other, and a ballot will need to quickly depict which seat in which legislative assembly are the representatives seeking election. They elaborate electoral system will all have to be represented visually and comprehensively in a complex election that can confuse experienced literate voters.

Polling Stations

The logistical demands of establishing up to 30,000 polling stations, printing approximately 220 million ballot papers representing the various constituencies, then distributing them—with the ballot boxes and other material—to each of the polling locations is daunting in itself. It is particularly challenging in a country the size of Sudan where lack of basic infrastructure, community remoteness and insecurity can interfere with the most coordinated of efforts.

Sudan’s April 2010 elections may be the most complex elections ever organized. Anywhere. Considering that a self-determination referendum is expected in 2011, one wonders if it would have been more realistic and appropriate to hold a simpler election process. Perhaps it would have been sufficient to elect only the three executive seats: President of the Republic of Sudan, President of the Government of Southern Sudan and Governor of each state. The simplification could have left constituent representative elections for a post-referendum Sudan, which most observers agree will result in a yes vote for independence of the South from the rest of Sudan.

—

Watch a video clip by Dominique Morissette of Afghanistan’s first presidential elections held on November 9, 2004. The video is best viewed in full-screen mode.

—-

Perspective: Sudan – Land of Water and Thirst; War and Peace

by Dr. Paul J. Sullivan as a Special to the Circle of Blue Water News.

As we approach the January 2011 date for the referendum on the south, and as we see Darfur seemingly in an eerily, but uncertain, peaceful period, we need to look at the water situation in Sudan. Water will be a make or break issue for the peace process in Sudan and in deciding whether the Sudan will move forward in peace and prosperity or more poverty and war. It is a country that went through one of the most brutal civil wars in history. Millions were killed and displaced. Sudan is the country of Darfur, “The lost boys,” and lost generations. One of the driving forces behind the start of the last civil war between the south and the north was the Jonglei Canal. This is an idea that has been around for a very long time. It was to be a canal to bring the water through one of the largest wetlands in the world, The Sudd, more quickly to the north and to Egypt. But those earlier plans did not include much improvement in the lives of the people of the South and along the proposed canal. Dr. John Garang, one of the leaders of the southern rebels wrote his Ph.D. on the Jonglei Canal. The horrors of Darfur can be partly traced back to climate change, rain pattern changes, and water stress. Water is a very big issue in Sudan.

About 80 percent of the people in Sudan find their livelihoods in agriculture. Agriculture is about 40 percent of the country’s GDP and accounts for about 97 percent of the water use. Meanwhile 70 percent of agriculture in Sudan is rain fed. The rest of agriculture can find its water through small traditional spate irrigation and via khors, small mostly hand dug canals, or via huge irrigation projects, such as the Gezira project — which uses about 35 percent of Sudan’s water, and the many giant sugar irrigation schemes. Sudan has the largest area of irrigation in all of Sub-Saharan Africa, but even if this is poorly managed and maintained.

A close up of the fields in the Gezira Scheme, which is one of the largest irrigation projects in the world. It is centered on the Sudanese state of Al Jazirah, just southeast of the confluence of the Blue and White Nile rivers at the city of Khartoum.

Water is not just income and jobs in Sudan. It is life, most particularly in the dry areas of the country: in Darfur and in the north while most of the wetlands are found in the south. This huge country has many climate and water zones. It has massive underground water reserves that are part of the largest source of freshwater in the world, the Great Nubian Sandstone aquifer. It also has the large Umm Rawaba and other aquifers. Sudan has the Nile, the Atbara and many other rivers coursing through it. The country is also blessed with the Nile River Basin, which is a watered, mostly underground area that can stretch to 80 percent of the country. As much as 80 to 85 percent of Sudan’s population used the Nile Basin waters. Most of the rains happen in the south. Much of the Nile water comes from other places, like Ethiopia, Uganda and more. The waters from the White Nile and The Atbara in the south and west rise and flood at different times from the Blue Nile and other sources in the east and central parts of the country — no real efforts have been developed to coordinate and better manage these flows and stocks.

Sudan not only faces down the threats from a potential new civil war, it also faces external tensions that could build over the sharing, use and abuse of the Nile across countries in the region. There is only one agreement between the many nations who share the Nile and that was established in 1959 between Sudan and Egypt. As the other countries along the Nile, including the most likely new Sudan in the south, want to develop, demand on the water of the Nile for electricity production, irrigation, industry and more will grow greater. Sudan also shares groundwater resources and sources with other countries. Though the ground water flows, the data on this is as scarce as good management of it.

Astonishingly little of its recharged groundwater and its surface water are used in this often water stressed country. What is used is often wasted with inefficient irrigation methods and even quite destructive rain fed farming methods, and livestock overgrazing. Meanwhile the extraordinarily destructive mechanized agricultural system that is causing huge deforestation, land and river bank erosion, salinization, and more negative effects. Water treatment is almost unheard of in the country, especially in the south. Water-borne diseases are rampant and pesticide poisoning via the water-food chains are likely quite common in some areas. The growth of the mesquite tree and water hyacinth has also wreaked havoc on the country’s water systems.

The precious water of Sudan is being degraded in many areas and wasted in others. Basin and catchment degradation are the norm in many parts of the country. The country is, on average, water rich, but it is management and maintenance poor.

Siltation near small and large dams is common. Suspended solids and stagnant water are common near the dams. Sudan needs the hydroelectricity — it is constantly in a severe energy crisis, but the dams could be more costly to the water and the environment than many may think.

Then there are the very difficult problems of what to do with the huge numbers of returning IDPs and the possible movement of southerners from the north to the south. Also, how are the north and the south to coordinate their water management and water uses? These are very big issues that need to be resolved, or at least managed better.

Sudan can solve its water and related problems with better data collection, better regulations and rule of law, improving incentives for using the water better, and simply managing the water better in an integrated water management system. All of this is easier said than done, but just about everyone who studies the water problems of Sudan, including many world class Sudanese, see the solutions, but also the excruciating practical problems in applying them. Poor governance and lack of governance capacity are huge issues, most particularly in the South.

Water is vital for food production, which is in decline as the population grows in Sudan. Clean water is vital for health and sanitation, but it is rare in and near the cities and even near some of the smaller villages. Most Sudanese use whatever water they can find, and sometimes that water is unhealthy, at times even deadly.

Water, land, food, energy and development are tightly and importantly interlinked. Water is also very much linked to the potential for peace in the country. The tensions and potentials for peace in Darfur, between the north and the south — and amongst many other in other regions, including between local tribes and clans — can be, in part, determined, by the availability, quality, sharing, management and maintenance of water sources in the country.

If the mismanagement and inadequate mediation methods continue we could see more wars and conflicts– and millions more dying and displaced. Water and all of its complex relations with land, development, opportunity, health, and more will be some of the reasons behind these preventable horrors.

Dr. Sullivan is a professor of economics at the National Defense University, Adjunct Professor of Security Studies and STIA at Georgetown University, and an adviser to Sudan projects at the United States Institute of Peace. He is an internationally recognized expert on the Middle East, parts of Africa, and international energy, water and other resource security and conflict issues.

I remember watching Riz Khan talking with Mogadishu rapper K’naan about Somalia (part 1, part 2). K’naan lives in Toronto now but I don’t I recall any Canadian media produce this kind of serious political analysis, an in-depth interview with an insightful rapper, including questions taken from the viewership. I was exhilarated by the show and tuned in nightly during my brief stays in Juba then again in Wau.

I remember watching an Inside Story episode on China’s questioning the value of the US dollar (part 1, part 2). A quick search online found one Canadian reference to the story in the National Post, two months after Al Jazeera’s Inside Story.

Another show, I watched on a regular basis was Witness with its host, Rageh Omaar. Before joining Al Jazeera, he worked as developing world correspondent for the BBC. His latest television report: America’s New Frontline: Diplomats or Warriors (see four-part series videos below) focuses on the American military command in Africa or Africom. Africom was “the culmination of a 10-year thought process within the Department of Defense (DoD)” and established on February 6, 2007 by President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates. They were “acknowledging the emerging strategic importance of Africa” and needed to establish a U.S. Africa Command on the continent.

In part four of the series, Rageh Omaar discusses Africom‘s role in pushing Operation Lightning Thunder, a massive assault on the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) along the borders of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic and Southern Sudan, beginning in December 2008. This is after peace talks in Juba are stalled after LRA leader, Joseph Kony, refuses to leave the bush to sign an agreement. Operation Lighting Thunder failed to capture Kony and scattered the rebel cult/army, comprised mainly of abducted child soldiers. An unfortunate side-effect of the assault’s failure are the LRA’s reprisal killings in the Congo, and Southern Sudan. Recent attacks in Western Equatoria State, Southern Sudan by LRA rebels have left many dead and forced up to 100,000 people to leave their villages in fear for their lives.

The Witness series provides an opportunity to review recent US policy with an approach unavailable in North American media. I will certainly continue to watch Al Jazeera as part of my information regime.

America’s New Frontline: Diplomats or Warriors – Part 1

America’s New Frontline: Diplomats or Warriors – Part 2

America’s New Frontline: Diplomats or Warriors – Part 3

America’s New Frontline: Diplomats or Warriors – Part 4

The material presented in the report comes from workshops in Malakal, Juba, Bor and Khartoum in May and June 2009, just after my own visit to Southern Sudan, although I went to Juba, Wau, Aweil and Abyei. Information comes from input during the workshops by local and international NGOs, faith group, politicians, government officials, civil society organizations and “others”.

The report defines four scenarios based on two uncertainties: 1) whether the country will be at war or at peace, and 2) whether the country will remain united or whether the south will secede from the north (see diagram below).

FOUR (five) SCENARIOS:

In the document’s executive summary, five main findings arose from the exercise of creating these four scenarios:

1. “It may not be wise to direct all long-term attention to developmental rather than humanitarian assistance.” because, the report stipulates, even in the best scenario (self-professed as the ‘CPA Hurray!’ scenario) “small-scale conflicts are still likely.”;
2. The ‘CPA Hurray!’ scenario is worth pursuing as a strategy because it “promises a less violent future.” But, according to this report (and this recent report), it “appears less plausible”.
3. The materialization of “free and fair elections is essential, not only to guarantee peace, but as the only peaceful way to bring about unity,” which according to September 2007 focus group survey, A Place to Call Their Own, as well as the report’s own southern focus groups, most Southerners do not want.
4. “Continuous outside mediation and pressure is needed to get all parties to implement the CPA and to make unity attractive.” It continues to explain that the “time horizon” needs more flexibility and needs to be extended beyond 2012. The need to talk about a “post-2012 period” is paramount particularly “about what unity might look like” to make the pre-2012 period “more manageable.”
5. “The critical difference between a successful and unsuccessful outcome will be to a large extent determined by whether the South has a stable, cooperative and confident leadership.”

The interesting future histories in Sudan between 2009-2012, created by the report’s author, lead to each of the four post-2012 Sudan scenarios are followed by the suggestions and policy options for the international community. They are well researched and seem to portray the current situation in Southern Sudan. Future histories are then formulated to create each of the four scenarios.

Based on the five main findings outlined above, the report seems to favour scenario #3, which represents the point of view of Northern focus groups, who view ‘CPA Hurray!’ as “a romantic but possible scenario.” The members of Southern focus groups expressed a belief that “a renewed war between the North and the South next to unavoidable” so scenarios one and two were most likely to them.

Possibly the most interesting element in the report is the identification by the Northern focus groups of a fifth “Stagnation’ scenario within the ‘no war’ and ‘united’ quadrant of the diagram. Based on a third uncertainty, which is given little attention these days, is the possibility that neither the 2010 elections nor the 2011 referendum will take place. They believe that “because elites in power in Khartoum and Juba have little to gain from [a election and a referendum], and prefer the present situation to continue.” This status quo situation would allow Sudanese and international actors to “muddle through, continuing to ‘band aid’ the Sudanese system together.”