The Origin of the State and the Right to Representation (article for Sudan Mirror Human Rights supplement)

One of the most important and fundamental rights of human beings is their right to live in a democracy, to receive adequate care and representation from those who claim to be their leaders and to live in peace and security. For the people of South Sudan such responsibilities will belong to the Government of South Sudan. Democracy is at best a subjective word. There are few regimes who would describe themselves as undemocratic. In most countries elections of one sort or another are held but how transparent or representative these are varies to a wide degree. However after decades of being denied the right to vote the citizens of South Sudan will finally be given a chance to make their voice heard in the forthcoming midterm elections and again in the referendum on secession. Also people are entitled to a nationality as is outlined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, but again what this is may not always be the most straightforward thing to describe. For the purpose of this article when I use the word State I am not referring to one component in a Federal System but rather to the federal system as a whole. By saying State I am referring to those elements which govern a Nation.

But to properly gauge this process we must first look back into history. One could argue that at the root of all of Sudan's problems is the fact that the State that came to be known as Sudan was not a Sudanese invention. Instead it was the result of European leaders drawing lines on a map of a place they had never been while sitting in a conference room in Berlin in the late nineteenth century. In Europe at this time two things were already well established. The notion of a nation-state and that of Imperialism. Perhaps it should be said that a state is much easier to define than a nation. A state has borders, institutions, legislative bodies and security organizations. A nation is a much hazier idea that many have tried to define. One could for example define a nation as a group of people living in the same place at the same time, but to paraphrase the writer James Joyce; if a family lives in the same house for twenty years does that make them a nation? And if we restrict the idea of nationality to location what then of the Diaspora? There are many millions of displaced people all over the world; this would then leave them without a nationality. But often it is those who are furthest from their homeland who value their nationality most dearly as it gives them a sense of identity in a world where much else may seem alien or unfamiliar. Also if we attempt to define a nation along cultural or ethnic lines we will alienate those who live among us as friends and neighbours who may not share all of our history or culture but do occupy the same place as us at the same time and participate in the same society.

If we are to look for example at the question of Israel and Palestine we can see the problems that such blurred definitions create. For thousands of years the Jewish people were people without a state. However more than Judaism simply being a religion it embodied a culture and a sense of identity that may well have been reinforced by the collective persecution of the Jewish people at various points in history. However some felt that at the heart of the suffering of the Jewish people was their lack of a homeland. Hence following World War II and all the suffering inflicted on the Jewish people at the hands of the Nazis many settlers began to arrive in what was then known as the British mandate of Palestine. Territory that had been liberated from one empire; only to be subjected to the control of the British Empire who performed the role of 'caretakers'. The problem however was that this was not virgin territory. It was a land that was already inhabited by the Palestinian people; it had of course been some two thousand years since the Jews had been forced to leave. The Jewish settlers initiated a terrorist campaign against the British administration and Palestinian natives. This eventually led to the recognition of the State of Israel by the United Nations in 1948.

This has led to further problems. Firstly the Palestinian people who had been living in what they considered their home for thousands of years found themselves suddenly resident in a State which did not recognize them as citizens. They had their homes and lands seized, were pushed into refugee camps or controlled areas and many were exiled. So now the Nation without a State had one but at he expense of making another Nation Stateless. For the Israelis Israel had to be Jewish state, otherwise there was no point to it but many Jews around the world refused to support the Israeli state or to participate in it as they felt it had been created on and operated along an unjust basis. So these Jews then continued to be Stateless.

From a European perspective there was a huge level of cultural arrogance that went into defining what it was that made a Nation-state and for most Europeans they do not see the distinction between one and the other. They view the Nation-state as people of a common culture and language living inside the same set of borders and controlled by the same legislature. However rather than being innate in Europeans this sense of nationalism had to be created. This was usually done through primarily enforcing a common language on the people, such as in France or finding all people with a common language and declaring them to be a nation, as in Germany. The Nation-states of Germany and Italy as we know them now did not come into existence until the nineteenth century. Prior to that the areas that comprise these Nation-states had consisted of a number of kingdoms who were often in conflict (or alliance) with one and other. However treaties and wars served to create a common sense of identity and purpose and unity was born.

Such tactics however did not always work. English monarchs saw little sense in being surround by Celtic people (Irish, Scottish and Welsh) and so decided to assimilate these people and territories into their own 'United Kingdom'. However after prolonged attempts at colonization of their closest neighbours they were never able to completely eradicate their sense of identity. If we look at a map we can see that part of this could be explained by the geographical layout of the Islands. Ireland is an Island on its own and as such the continued occupation of the Northeast corner of the island by Britain continues to a sore point for many who feel that not only does Ireland have a separate culture and identity but is easily identifiable as a separate geographic entity. Wales and Scotland continue to be part of Britain but have their own parliaments and limited autonomy as well as their own languages and cultures.

So when Europeans began to colonise the rest of the world they began with the conceit that nation and state should be one and the same thing. They approached North and South America with much the same approach as they did Africa. As there were no clearly demarcated borders or flags. And no strong central authority they regarded this land as virgin territory. In order to avoid inter(European) state conflict Otto Von Bismarck, the first Chancellor of the newly united Germany, called the Berlin conference which ran from late 1884 to early 1885. The aim of this conference was to regulate the 'Scramble for Africa' and to divide the spoils of Africa between the European colonizers as if Africans had no right to them.

So it was from this situation that modern African borders arose and when the period of decolonization came in the mid-twentieth century they were adhered to as if they had existed since time immemorial. Tribes were divided by borders and geographical boundaries served to bunch together groups who had little interaction and may even have been hostile prior to this. This situation can especially be seen in Sudan where the British and Egyptians conspired to create a large Arab dominated state that would protect their mutual interests. When the people of South Sudan began their struggle for survival it was not because they longed for an abstract notion of a nation or for the organizational structure of a State to call their own but rather because they were defending themselves from an attempt to eliminate them. There were of course the same differences between the people of South Sudan as there were between the peoples of all the other artificially created states but through their collective struggle a sense of identity was born.

The ultimate outcome of the civil war was the comprehensive peace agreement which guaranteed a certain level of autonomy to the people of South Sudan. The people of South Sudan now have an opportunity which they never had before, the right to representative democracy. For the first time they will be able to participate in elections and cast a vote for the representative of their choice. They will even have the right to run in elections themselves if they so wish. As I stated above, democracy is a subjective word and it would be hard to find any system in place in the world which could be described as perfectly democratic but the key to democracy is responsibility. It is the responsibility of the politicians to represent the people in the best way they can and to serve their interests. It is the responsibility of the state to serve its people and to ensure their welfare in the best way they can. But it is also the responsibility of the people to ensure that their politicians represent them properly and do not mismanage what they are given to protect.

For the people of South Sudan what they have gained now is more than just peace, for even peace can be fragile. In the past representation came from the north, from a system that had no aims or ambitions to represent the people of the south and cared little more about representing even their own people. When the war began and the people of the South asserted themselves leadership came through a military command structure and from those who campaigned for independence. In such a situation the lines between military and civilian life can become very blurred as it becomes impossible for anybody to remain uninvolved in the conflict. Many of the tasks that should in peacetime have been the responsibility of the government were carried out by NGOs who provided emergency food and healthcare. In the past nobody stopped to ask the people of South Sudan what it was they wanted but soon they will have this opportunity.

As part of this process the census is being carried out in order to (a) count the population and decide on how to divide the country into constituencies and (b) access the future needs of the new Sudan. While to many the census may seem intrusive and ironically an infringement on their right to privacy it is also an important part of guaranteeing their democratic rights. However it is also important to be aware of the fact that many may seek to fabricate the information in the census reports to serve their own ends. In order for the new Sudan to be as democratic as possible it is important that the census should be as accurate as possible. The figures that the census reports will decide on constituencies for the election to determine in what way the people should be represented. It will also calculate such things as how many schools or hospitals are needed in a certain area and allow lawmakers to plan for the future development of the new Sudan.

It is important that people realize that for such things to succeed participation is absolutely necessary. Representative democracy can be quite democratic, but in order to be truly so it must be participative democracy. Now is the time for Sudanese people to assert their rights in dealing with their leaders and the institutions that will be created. It is probably innate in all of us not to trust politicians but this is unlikely to bother them unless we are willing to question them and their actions. While the war may be over there is a struggle to build a new society. In the new Sudan responsibility will extend both ways. It is the responsibility of the State to guarantee the welfare of its citizens and to protect their interests and their rights but it will be the responsibility of the citizens to participate and to ensure that their rights are protected.