Review of Ann Lesch, The Sudan: Contested
National Identities, Indiana University Press, 1998.
by Michael Kevane
December 30, 1999
This timely, well-researched and comprehensive review of the political forces and events responsible for the tragedy of the modern Sudan is definitely worth the very modest paperback price. Lesch surveys the political writings, secondary literature, and events as they unfolded until the end of 1997. Sadly, recent events do not make the book out of date; politics in Sudan, despite spectacular headlines of rifts in both ruling regime and opposition NDA, remain sectarian, personal, divisive and stalemated.
The book focuses on national-level political forces. It opens with a brief discussion of the concepts of nation and identity that frames the history of conflict in the Sudan. A couple of short and very readable chapters then bring us right up to the brieft 1985-89 parliamentary period. This in and of itself is remarkable for most books on Sudan, which spend inordinate time on the 1950s and 1960s, leaving the last chapter for the present. Finally, we have a book that focuses on today! The chapters on the present situation are arranged in rough chronological order, and include discussions of the parliamentary period, the polarization among the northern parties, two chapters on the negotiations with the S.P.L.A., the complex structures of the current military regime, a thorough chapter on the indoctrination and control policies of the military regime, and two chapters on the fragmented opposition. An appendix lists members of governments since 1985, there are copious notes for each chapter, and an excellent index.
For this reviewer the book constitutes a veiled criticism of and political primer for the opposition to the military regime. The main opposition, consisting of S.P.L.A. and former northern political parties D.U.P. and Umma, have utterly failed to articulate a compelling vision that would constitute a real call to arms. Without such a vision their hopes to liberate the people of the Sudan from a criminal dictatorship that hides behind Islamic rhetoric seem utopian. The regime will eventually fall, but not because of a better alternative. And the Sudan will end up like Zaire/Congo. That is the criticism.
The primer part of the book carefully goes through, in a balanced and objective way, the tortuous politics of the last thirty years, and insistently suggests that what Lesch calls the ‘ethnic-pluralist’ model of the state is the correct alternative. After reading this book, could any reasonable person disagree?
Lesch’s unsaid message is that neither side seems to have found their miracle propagandist, a person who articulates a vision that overwhelms and captures the public imagination. Lesch does not pretend to offer that inspiring vision, and perhaps inherent in the nature of the Sudan such a vision is impossible: what language would it be phrased in, anyway? Arabic? English? Definitely not a southern language, if it is to command the loyalty of the north. Multi-lingual imagery? Why not?
The poverty of the vision of the current crop of leaders is I think apparent when one thinks of the lack of imagery created by the political forces. For instance, the only image in Lesch’s book, other than a map, consists of the S.P.L.A.’s Venn diagrams of political possibilities in Sudan, reproduced on page 176. The top part shows a large circle representing northern Sudan encompassing a smaller circle representing southern Sudan. The middle diagram shows the two circles, now equal in size, partially overlapping. The bottom diagram shows two circles again, this time completely separate. This is the vision that a villager would take up arms for? Only a Ph.D. like Garang would think so. Perhaps he is thinking of the Olympic symbol? Does the S.P.L.A. have a logo? Does the N.D.A.? Perhaps the real problem of Sudan is the marginalization of poets, artists, singers and musicians... the current regime has managed to isolate and disperse them, preventing the efflorescence of a language and imagery of resistance.
Lesch ends on a hopeful note, summarizing the soul-searching of the Umma Party which, in exile and dependant on the S.P.L.A. for the military fight against the regime, decided to support a secular state and the right to separation for the South. Finally, some growing up, the reader might feel. (But not enough, apparently, as in 1999 Sadiq al-Mahdi, head of the Umma, went on to negotiate separate agreements aimed at returning himself to power.) Apologies do not symbols or programs make, however, and much more work needs to be done.