Header image

Bashir wins: What it means for Sudan

Posted by Maureen Monday, April 26, 2010 Labels: , , , ,

Today the election results came in: Bashir has been reelected as the President of Sudan. Shocker. I've been holding my breath to find out who the winner is. (Can you sense my sarcasm?).

After a long, corrupt, unfair, and poorly executed election, the Sudanese people are right back where they started. Same President, same laws, same oil money not being distributed fairly, same violence happening in Darfur, same criminal indictment going unpunished. And dare I mention the same international powers doing nothing to do anything about it, like, for example, our own President. (That's right, you just witnessed my first public statement in criticism of Pres. Obama. Boom.)

So what does it mean? Nothing, as far as I can tell. Bashir will go on being validated as an international leader despite his criminal indictment, and perhaps he will do so for years in the future unless someone in his government is willing to hand him over. Unlikely. But you've heard me say that before.

The one thing Bashir has said to try to gain the respect and trust of Sudanese people is, that when Southern Sudan has the opportunity to vote for secession next year, he will honor the results. If they vote to secede, he will allow them to do so peacefully. Only time will tell if he speaks the truth or is just using that as a ploy to get support from the South. But time will also tell if Southern Sudan can possibly come up with the infrastructure to hold a legitimate election. After this massive election fail that just occurred, I doubt it. What's more, I personally feel that the South seceding would result in a massive national disaster. But I won't go into that (and by "I won't go into that", I mean, "I need a whole blog series to cover that topic and you bet that I'll be doing so soon!").

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

If, by national disaster, you mean massive tribal and political violence and untold casualties - border dispute for a decade, mass starvation - exploitation (especially of the female population), complete disregard for the populous or its peril, then sure - national disaster will cover that!

Maureen said...

Yes, that's precisely what I mean. Unfortunately.