Venn Diagram: The New Sudan Vision According to Dr. John Garang
4 min readTHE 6TH-12TH SEPTEMBER 1991 TORIT RESOLUTIONS
Solution Modalities in the Sudan Conflict as Envisaged Through Dr. John Garang’s Vision of The New Sudan
There are five political scenarios but only two solution models. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. So I will present this analysis using Venn diagrams. ‘Model 3’ is the present Islamic Arab Sudan. It is the problem. The non-Arab and non-Muslims are excluded from this type of Sudan. Now it is even worse. To be included in this Sudan one has to be an NIF.
This model is unstable. It has led to two wars: the Anyanya war and the present SPLM-SPLA war. That is the Old Sudan and it must go or else the Africans can break away and establish an independent state of their own under ‘Model 5’.
We can also have a United Black African Sudan as in ‘Model 4’. It is a hypothetical model but it is not far-fetched. If the thirty one percent Arab population can claim to have an Arab Sudan, there is no reason why the sixty nine percent who are Africans cannot claim a Black African Sudan. This model is also unstable.
The non-Africans can resist this model and call for their own state, also under ‘Model 5’. Then we could agree on the transitional ‘Model 2’. This is the confederal model. The essence of it is that we have two states; one in the North and one in the South linked by a central authority responsible for the matters in which we have an agreement. These are what we call the ‘commonalities’. It is a model to end the war. You end the war by accepting the realities of the country.
There is no way, for instance, in which we can compromise on the question of Islamic Sharia no matter how it is coated. We believe that we must leave the issue of Sharia or no Sharia to each state to decide. Those who want it can have it one hundred percent. They can cut off their hands if they want to. We are opposed to the practice but we are not going to stick out our necks for it.
Meanwhile in the South, we would have a secular state. This model can end the war and can be stable during the interim period. Thus during the interim period, if the Southern economy works very well, the pilgrimage might be to Juba rather than to Mecca.
This is how communism collapsed. It was undermined through the demonstration effect. In this respect, this model is subversive. The Confederal model can lead to the creation of the New Sudan through the expansion of the commonalities over time. This is the preferred outcome of ‘model 1’.
I want to underline here that choosing one of these models is not like multiple choice exam questions where you say, what do you want, A, B, C, D, or E, choose one of them. NO. It is NOT. These models are not electives. Whatever model you choose, you got to fight for it, you got to struggle for it.
And so, for example, in the existing model 3 here of the Arab-Islamic Sudan state, it is in existent and it is in existent by sheer force. It is not there because someone just pick it; it is there simply because it is being enforced by force. If you, for instance, want model 2 or model 1 or model 5, you got to struggle for it, you have to fight for them.
I am saying this, stressing this, because some strange Southerners say we want model 5 (separation) and then they sit back in their chairs and they wait for it to come: but how will it comes ya jamaa? I mean, how could it ever possibly comes to them in their chairs in foreign capital cities, or worse, while they are in Khartoum?
About Post Author
