Sudan Launches ‘New Era’ Amid Much Hoopla

After a gala parade, a presidential address to the nation, fireworks and a special session of the National Assembly, Sudan’s Islamic leaders on Wednesday began what they are dubbing a new era of constitutional legitimacy for this war-torn country.

The reason for the festivities disturbing this hot, sleepy capital this week was the adoption of a new constitution, which, on paper at least, promises to turn Sudan into a federal, multi-party democracy. It also grants the south of the country the right to secede in an internationally supervised referendum after four years.

President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir signed the charter Tuesday and proclaimed that it “opens all the doors for taking part in the system, and grants more freedoms, rights and sanctities than any other constitution we have had before.”

Bashir challenged opposition leaders in exile and rebels fighting his government in the south and east to lay down their arms and help join in managing Sudan; he said the new constitution satisfies most of their demands.

“Sudan is being reborn,” agreed Riak Mechar, a former southern rebel chief who negotiated a separate peace in April 1997 with the regime and now is in the forefront of those putting stock in the government’s promises.

Sudan, a vast Nile River country, has been a thorn in the side of the United States since its 1989 revolution. It supported Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, is accused of having given sanctuary to the would-be assassins of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in 1995 and remains on the U.S. State Department’s short list of countries accused of sponsoring international terrorism.

If the constitutional reforms are genuine, analysts welcome them, praising any move to improve human rights and settle this country’s civil war, in which an estimated 1.3 million people have died from fighting and hunger since 1983.

But, by and large, government opponents are scoffing at the constitution, saying they see no reason to celebrate a document they had no hand in drafting. Western diplomats also are so far unconvinced that the charter’s high ideals will be borne out in practice.

Some independent journalists, though, say the constitution is part of a recent shift to greater tolerance by the leaders of Sudan’s Islamic revolution, which also marked its ninth anniversary Tuesday.

And at least some government foes see the charter as an opening they can build upon. “If there is more freedom starting in July, you will see us becoming more effective,” said one anti-government activist.

Geographically the largest country in Africa, Sudan, with 26 million people, is a country divided. The northern two-thirds is predominantly Muslim and views itself as part of the Arab world. The southern third is predominantly non-Muslim--either Christian or practicing traditional African religions--and views itself as part of Africa.

Rebels in the guerrilla force known as the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army have fought unsuccessfully for years for autonomy or independence. The rebels are not strong enough to win; the government is not strong enough to defeat them. The result has been years of suffering and stagnation. The new constitution is the latest attempt to forge some kind of effective consensus on how this nation will be run.

Although the coup that deposed Sudan’s elected government was spearheaded by army officers from the National Islamic Front, the new constitution shies away from being overtly Islamic. Its first article states that Sudan is “an embracing homeland, wherein races and cultures coalesce and religions conciliate.”

Among the freedoms and rights this document enumerates are: freedom from slavery, forced labor, humiliation or torture; equality before the law; freedom of worship; freedom of expression; and freedom to form political associations.

But Mostafa Abdel Kadir, a lawyer and government critic, dismissed the document as pure deception and window dressing, forced on the regime by its increasing unpopularity with its own people. “The regime,” he asserted, “didn’t change their objectives or policies at all. They just changed their tactics.”

A Western diplomat called the referendum that endorsed the constitution “a farce.” Officially, 97% of voters participating approved the document, with the turnout announced at 91%. “Regardless of the contents of the constitution, we can safely say it’s a play to look good in the international forum,” the diplomat said.

The first test of the government’s sincerity will be the shape of a new law on political parties.

And the ultimate test will be the referendum on whether the government permits the south to secede in four years. Hassan Turabi, the speaker of parliament and a leading Islamist thinker who is considered Sudan’s power behind the throne, denied in an interview that the rights granted have been forced upon the government. He said they were the natural outcome--”a little bit late perhaps”--of the original intent of the military officers who carried out the 1989 coup to “democratize the country from below.”

Although the government tried to create a festive atmosphere around the document’s approval--with officials declaring a national holiday and marshaling a parade with bodybuilders, child acrobats, bicyclists and boxers in addition to fighters of every ilk--the celebration drew only 10,000 or so people.

Even allowing for natural torpor in this dusty metropolis, the public seemed notably apathetic. The international community also yawned. Only one head of state--Sheik Hamad ibn Khalifa al Thani, emir of tiny Qatar--came for the celebration. At the parade, appreciative Sudanese marched behind the emir’s photo, and the master of ceremonies took the trouble to read out to the crowd the 48-year-old Qatari ruler’s curriculum vitae. Twice.