Equality, unity or both?

Today voting starting in southern Sudan on a referendum for independence. Having read a little commentary on the issue and having engaged in a few conversations with friends, I began to wonder if the referendum will portend a dramatic shift in African politics.

There are many mismanaged democracies in Africa and perhaps the only time suffrage has been used to address social and economic inequalities in the post-colonial period was the election of Nelson Mandela in 1994. And that election was more of a victory against apartheid, a dying and economically unsustainable system, which by 1991 had galvanized world opinion and policy. It was not an election where Africans, controlling their own destiny, removed one universally elected government for another that could better deal with economic and social injustice (although South Africa's most recent election could have such implications). It was a worldwide movement largely viewed through the colonial lens of oppressed and oppressor.

In many ways, the oppressed and oppressors in Africa are now all Africans. And in most instances, the oppressed arguably have an electoral voice. Democracy should provide at least some systematic redress for badly governed nations. But it doesn't, why?

Because Africa is trapped within a confusing and backwards political order. No place demonstrates this more than the Sudan. The people in southern Sudan never viewed themselves as being in political allegiance with the north. Their association as one Sudan is an anachronism of colonialism and political decisions made in 1956 when the British gave most of the political power to the north. Further complicating the situation is the fact that the south itself is not one politically coherent entity.

How does democracy work with so many competing agendas, histories, languages? Elections become not paths to right social and economic wrongs but opportunities to see that your tribe or region gets its fair shake. Politicians and officials have little allegiance to the nation, which in recent memory was nothing but arbitrary borders on a map, but retain most of their sympathies and efforts for their home regions and groups. Elections become another means of civil war with rampant disenfranchisement and vote rigging common.

There are no political ideologies running through most African elections today. There is no "jobs" agenda, "anti-poverty" agenda (but see developing elections in Nigeria). Instead, most nations are consumed with the "northern" or "eastern" or "southern" agenda. Not that there aren't serious African leaders tackling important issues in government but during its elections Africa is still fighting against the borders it was given. There are notable exceptions, for instance Rwanda but even its democracy is traumatized and colored by the recent genocide. That's why the election in Sudan is being hailed across the world. Finally, we have an another African election that matters, that is about something real, equality, freedom.

A commentary by Mo Ibrahim in last week's Financial Times, "Sudan is a warning to all of Africa" was thought-provoking precisely because it raises the question of whether this type of election could change the face of African politics. One wonders what the continent would have looked like without its colonial borders. Africa is a continent of hundreds of peoples and languages and thousands of villages. Perhaps a continent of a thousand nations would be more peaceful and harmonized. Personally, I doubt this would have happened. Even absent colonialism, Africa would have become engulfed in wider geopolitical struggles and arbitrary borders would still have been established, even if less disruptive and disorganized than current ones.

But what if other people, instead of resorting to civil war, rigging elections, protests, opted for electoral separation? Would nations like Nigeria be more peaceful and successful if its different regions and groups broke off politically? The people in these countries have a long history of trade, intermarriage and peaceful cooperation. Why couldn't they continue this tradition as separate political entities? In today's economic order, the size of markets matter but Europe demonstrates, albeit not that convincingly at the moment, that politically distinct entities can form economic unions. Why not Africa?

If you speak with many people in Côte d'Ivoire about the recent election, a lot of their comments are tinged with the tribalism that engulfs most African politics. Why can't Côte d'Ivoire establish a devolved or federalist style government built around monetary and economic cooperation?

The referendum in Sudan gives questions like these a much louder echo chamber as more groups, especially oppressed or disenfranchised minorities raise their hands and ask why not us?

Interesting reading:
The battle is on for the soul of the Tory party, Janet Daley, Daily Telegraph.
Washington concerned as Turkey is leaving the West, Ariel Cohen, Daily News & Economic Review.
Africa's Hour, James Traub, Foreign Policy.