Print

HOME|COMMENT&ANALYSISSUNDAY13JANUARY2008

RootsofSudaneseconflictareintheBritishcolonialpolicies
BySavoHeleta

January12,2008WhatiswrongwithAfrica?Whyisthelargestnumberoffailedstatesonthecontinent?Issomethingfundamentallywrong
with Africans or could there be another explanation? Trying to find answers to these questions, lets see what historians and social scientists
believearetherootsoftheconflictinSudan,anAfricancountrywherepeacelastedforlittleoveradecadesince1956.

Likeinallotherpartsoftheworld,therewasalwayssomeformofconflictintheregionthatbecameSudanattheCongressofBerlinin1886,
wheretheEuropeancolonialpowersdrewthebordersofAfricancountries.Bechtold(1976)writesthattheanimositybetweenthenorthernand
southern Sudanese can be traced back to the Arab slave raids when northern tribes had been contracted by the Arabs to conduct raiding
activitiesinthesouth.However,beforethelate19thcentury,theSudaneseconflictwasnotstrictlyethnic,betweentheArabnorthandtheAfrican
south,writesPrunier(2005),buttribalconflictoverterritoryandresources.Similarfightingoccurredalloverthecontinentandaroundtheworld
throughoutthehistory.

Since1899,SudanwasruledbytheAngloEgyptianCondominium.However,Egypthadlittleinfluenceinreality(ElMahdi,1965Albino,1970
HoltandDaly,1979).Deng(1978)callstheCondominiuma"BritishrulewithEgyptasarubberstamphalf."

Tryingtocontrolhalfoftheworldatthetime,theBritishdidnothavetheforcetooccupySudan.LikeinothercoloniesacrossAfrica,theyhadto
institutethe"divideandrule"policyinSudan.TheywantedSudanesetodistrust,fear,andfighteachother,insteadoftheircolonizers.

The "divideandrule" policy separated southern Sudanese provinces from the rest of the country and slowed down their economic and social
development.TheBritishauthoritiesclaimedthatthesouthwasnotreadytoopenuptothemodernworld(ChapinMetz,1992).Atthesame
time, the British heavily invested in the Arab north, modernizing and liberalizing political and economic institutions and improving social,
educational,andhealthservices(ElMahdi,1965,Eprile,1974ChapinMetz,1992OBallance,2000).

TheBritishCondominiumgovernmenthadnothingagainstIslaminthenorthernpartsofSudan.Infact,theBritishencouragedIslamizationofthe
norththroughfinancialhelpforbuildingmosquesandpilgrimagetravelsforMuslims(HoltandDaly,1979).InsouthernSudanhowever,withthe
help of Christian missionaries, they wanted to prevent the spread of Islam (OBallance, 2000) and "preserve purely African way of life of the
southernpeople"(Albino,1970).Wenger(1991)claimsthattheBritishatthistimeplannedtoattachsouthernSudantotheBritishcolonialEast
Africa.

AnothercolonialexperimentthatsloweddowndevelopmentofsouthernSudanhadbeenthe"indirectrule"policy.Inordertopreventeducated
urban class and religious leaders from influencing social and political life in southern Sudan, the British authorities gave "power" to the tribal
leadersandruledthroughthem(HoltandDaly,1979).Whilethe"divideandrule"policyseparatedthenorthandsouth,the"indirectrule"divided
the south into hundreds of informal chiefdoms. The British authorities made their "indirect rule" policies official through the "Southern Policy"
document.

TheSouthernPolicystatedthat,"thepolicyofthegovernmentinsouthernSudanistobuildupaseriesofselfcontainedtribalunitswithstructure
and organization based upon indigenous customs, traditions, and beliefs" (Albino, 1970). These southern tribal units were to be completely
separatedfromtherestofthecountry.UnderthePolicy,northernofficialsweretransferredoutofthesouth,tradingpermitsfornorthernerswere
withdrawn,andspeakingArabicandevenwearingofArabicdresseswerediscouraged(Albino,1970Eprile,1974Deng,1978HoltandDaly,
1979ChapinMetz,1992).

Deng(1978)notesthattheperiodoftheBritishruleinthesouthwasthe"longestperiodofpeaceandsecurity[inhistory],atleastfrominvasion
andtheuseofcrudeforce."Toynbee(quotedinAlbino,1970)believesthat,whiletheBritishhadpreventedtheoppressionandexploitationofthe
southernSudanesebytheirnortherncountrymen,theydidlittletohelpthesouth"tolearnhowtoholdtheirowninthemodernworld."

TheBritishadministrationreverseditsSouthernPolicyin1946,statingthatthesouthernSudanesewere"inextricablybound,bothgeographically
andeconomically,totheArabnorthasfarasfuturedevelopmentwasconcerned"(Eprile,1974Bechtold,1976ChapinMetz,1992).Oneofthe
reasonsforthisabruptdecision,writesEprile(1974),wasaneedtorepaynorthernSudanforhelpingBritainduringWorldWarII.

ThetensionsandmistrustbetweenthenorthernandsouthernSudanesethathadbeenbuildingupoverdecadesculminatedintoalargescale
armed conflict in the mid1950s (Eprile, 1974). Fearing marginalization by the more populous and developed north, southern army officers
mutiniedin1955(Bechtold,1976).ThiswasthebeginningofthefirstlongcivilwarinSudan.Toynbee(quotedinAlbino,1970)believesthatthe
BritishpoliciesintheSudanweretheprimarycauseofconflict:

TheBritishdifferentiatedthenorthernandsouthernSudanesefromeachotherwithoutseparatingthempolitically.Thismadeitvirtuallyinevitable
that,ifandwhentheBritishabdicated,thenortherners,beingbyfarthestrongerofthetwosectionsoftheSudanesepeople,shouldattempt,as
theyhavedone,toassimilatethesouthernersbyforce.This,inturn,hasmadeitinevitablethatthereshouldbeasouthernresistancemovement.

Similarly, Cohen (1996) believes that the British "indirect rule" policy retarded interactions among different groups in the south and lead to
divisionsandconflictbetweenthem,thushelpingthenortherners:
The protective umbrella of indirect rule made it possible for some tribal groups to develop vital interests while other groups became relatively
underprivileged.WhentheBritishwithdrew,anintensestruggleforpowerensued.Theprivilegedbecameexposedtothedangeroflosingpower
andhadtomobilizetheirforcesindefence,whiletheunderprivilegedalignedthemselvestogainpower.

Historians and social scientists, both Western and Sudanese, believe that the postindependence conflict in Sudan was largely caused by the
ethnicdivisionscreatedbytheBritishcolonialadministrationbetween1899and1956.Thesouthbecameeconomicallyunderdevelopedandcut
outfromtherestofthecountryduetotheBritishsegregationistpolicies.Asaresultofunderdevelopmentandthelackofpoliticalorganizations
andunity,thesouthernregionwasnotpreparedtoactivelyparticipateintheSudanesegovernmentafterindependence.
RegionaldifferencesresultedinadeeplydividedandeconomicallydifferentiatedSudananArabdominatednorth,economicallyandpolitically
stronger than an underdeveloped and weaker African south. The southern provinces, sidelined during the British rule, continued to be
marginalizedandunderdevelopedinindependentSudancontrolledbythenortherners.Thisconsequentlytriggeredthesouthernrebellionand
twocivilwarsthatravagedthecountryforthemostpartofthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury.

So, what is wrong with Africa? Why there are so many failed states, like Sudan, on the African continent? While Africans are to blame for
corruption, despotism, and the lack of rule of law since independence, the root causes of the majority of conflicts in Africa lie in the policies
implementedbytheformercolonialpowers,fromSouthAfrica,Rwanda,andSudan,tonameonlyafew.InthecaseofSudan,theprimarycause
of mistrust, divisions, and conflict between the north and south lie in "divideandrule" and "indirect rule" policies implemented by the British
colonialauthorities.

* The author a postgraduate student in Conflict Transformation and Management at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University in Port Elizabeth,
SouthAfrica.HeistheauthorofNotMyTurntoDie:MemoirsofaBrokenChildhoodinBosnia.ThebookwillbepublishedintheUnitedStatesby
AMACOM,NewYork,inMarch08.Moreaboutthebookonwww.savoheleta.com