Darfur: Common Grounds and the Lack of Institutionalization among the
Movements
July 18, 2005
It is well established that the Nairobi Agreement (Naivasha Agreement) signed between the
Khartoum government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) was a bilateral
accord. It effectively reduced Sudan to two poles—one northern and one southern—neither of
which possessed the necessary conditions for success. Through these two axes, the affairs of
the country were managed, narratives were woven, and the Sudanese map was played with in
fragmented mosaics, based on autocratic interests concerning only the two Naivasha parties.
These arrangements fall far short of the true political mosaic or of addressing the grievances
of all, or even recognizing the other as a partner in principle within this perpetually distorted
nation.
This situation leaves no room for doubt that the other regions, margins, and corners of Sudan
must adopt a serious and proactive stance toward opposing this status quo and fostering
political thought as a new value. This political thought should be part of a revolution for rights
and collective consciousness, a collective uprising, and the construction of free and rational
concepts that refuse to bow to the principle of the forbidden—sooner or later.
The lived and ongoing reality, despite various hypotheses that may prove right or wrong,
cannot serve as a foundation for success without a birth of intellectual renewal and a
collective political labor. Indeed, tensions at the margins, regardless of their necessity, have
become inevitable, the consequences of which are borne by successive Khartoum regimes,
especially the post-1989 government.
However, the situation in Darfur is somewhat anomalous and deeply regrettable. It began
where tribalism was rooted, evolving so that politics became a new heritage for tribal
exclusivism and an adjunct to civil strife. This complex and tangled situation in Darfur led all
parties to a fountain of death, collision, and conflagration without adequately measuring the
region’s temperature in its comprehensive political, social, security, cultural, and institutional
dimensions.
Although the armed movements have legitimate demands in principle, their lack of a shared
collective political project encompassing the full spectrum of Darfuri society represents a
critical point of divergence. Additionally, the absence of institutional frameworks that could
serve as organizational platforms bringing together the intersections of all mature currents is a
serious shortfall.
The failure to understand the shared concerns of all factions and forces on the ground has
hindered the ascendance of a united liberation movement in the region. The dominance of
ethnic concepts and tribalist thinking as guiding principles for the movements’ political
conduct is a disabling and delaying factor in the common struggle.
It is noteworthy that the deliberate marginalization of "vital forces" in the region by the
Khartoum regime, as well as by the tribal systems represented by the ethnic movements with
their narrow local perspectives, based on routine ethnic biases and centripetal formulations for
a particular tribe, has been a significant and effective factor in dismantling the Darfuri body.
This has led the region to slide into a pit of lamentation and sorrow, embracing fragmentation
as a defining characteristic to explain and expose the misappropriation of Darfuri rights—first
by its own people, and then by successive Sudanese regimes of all compositions.
One of the unjustified strategic mistakes has been the continued perpetuation of the dark and
chaotic national scene with all its vague and refuted details, thus fueling a catalyst for endless
failure.
It is clear that the volatility of the ethnic systems, with their wavering perceptions and their
predatory political behavior—permitted within the ethnic context on the ground—has been
among the greatest distortions and disincentives for uniting the region within a coherent
political fabric in terms of orientations, principles, and common grounds.
Regardless of breakthroughs towards collective civil harmony, Darfur urgently requires a
corrective restructuring of its collective and holistic liberation efforts. It necessitates
recognition of the other, acknowledgment of shared interests, and pride in pluralism as a
reservoir and protective asset that can lead to a logical and acceptable outcome for all parties.
Respecting the other as a legitimate partner with rights, responsibilities, and duties is a
fundamental and self-evident prerequisite.
This respect requires no extraordinary effort to seek scapegoats to fill the public spheres or to
control trajectories. It rejects surrendering to exclusion or the social, political, and security
assassination of the other, and the diminution of their role behind closed doors in the name of
liberation, justice, or a domesticated utopian spirit aligned with the same authority, under the
pretense of false nationalism and continual deception.
Although the organizational structure of the Darfur movements remains repugnant to the
liberation struggle, since it lacks any universal framework or principle relating to Darfur as a
whole, the idea of a shared visionary concept could be acceptable—provided it is backed by
credibility and transparency. This would enable a clearer understanding of the events within
the troubled region from all enlightened and optimistic perspectives.
Restructuring the political mindset and carefully selecting the terminology of this phase, while
engaging with matters within a framework of common grounds and recognition of the
particularities of all, serves as a stimulant and enrichment of the collective memory of the
region. This is essential to achieving success, reaping the fruits of struggle, and enjoying
sovereignty, freedom, development, and participation in decision-making at the national level.
Such principles form the foundations of a mature struggle and contestation. They are not
transient measures or substitutes for momentary alternatives aimed merely at glossing over
realities or marketing one phase at the expense of another, which inevitably degenerates into
chaos and security breaches that shatter the face of Sudan generally, and Darfur in particular.
Given the urgency and gravity of the situation in Darfur, there is an immediate and pressing
need for institutional and organizational rehabilitation of the liberation movement. This is
necessary to coordinate the stages and details of the ongoing struggle with transparency and
objectivity to emerge from the dark tunnel and the organizational quagmire at all levels.
This requires a coalition of all components of regional forces to rise and abandon the
principles of exclusion, tribal dictatorships, ethnic grievances, and politically domesticated
tensions fueled by illogical ideas unfit to serve as vessels for the region’s diverse
constituencies.
From this brief assessment, it becomes clear that the success and completion of the liberation
journey cannot be achieved without reformulating organizational frameworks, creating
channels of communication, and fostering a spirit of acceptance of the other as an equal.
Darfur’s peace is everyone’s peace, and unless a key party is included in any settlement,
future negotiations will merely engineer forthcoming violence that will spare no one.
If the details of any agreement are conceived through the mindset of a dominant tribe, they
will mean nothing on the ground and will be upheld only by those who swim in its current.
Conflict will persist and expand, and the currently available political mentality will be nothing
more than a prelude to the fierce clashes ahead.
To avoid a tribal war against tribe, urgent, practical, serious, logical, and well-studied steps
must be taken to guide the liberation movement out of the dark tunnel for all the people of
Darfur. This includes correcting the course and conduct of military and paramilitary
movements and adopting a Darfurian project inclusive of all on an equal footing.
The push should be towards institutionalizing and directing conditions on the ground in favor
of the people of Darfur, instead of senseless altercations, unwarranted communal violence,
and endless cycles of revenge.
