After seventy years of marginalization, you tell us: A government of technocrats?!

Khaled Kodi – Boston

An Introduction: From Structural Marginalization to Disguised Technocracy:

When the prevailing political discourse in Sudan today proposes the so-called “government of technocrats,” it appears —at first glance— as a neutral and logical call to bring in competencies and expertise to lead the transitional or founding phase in a nation that has been faltering in its progress since its independence seventy years ago. However, when this proposal is separated from the Sudanese historical and social context, it becomes a tool for reproducing structural marginalization and a new mask for the control of the Central elites after they monopolized power in Sudan since the post-colonial era under the banner of the national State, while practicing internal colonialism and, through it, deeply excluding their citizens from marginalized areas.

Hence, to advocate a “technocratic government” without questioning the structure that created racial, class, and regional inequalities is a fraudulent attempt at change. It maintains the old social pyramid and reproduces its tragedies under the guise of competence and neutrality.

First: Sudan as a Post-Colonial State that has yet to be Liberated from Colonialism:

Since its independence in (1956), Sudan has yet to transcend the State structure established by the British-Egyptian colonial powers: a centralized, Arab-Islamic State, governed from Khartoum, marginalizing Darfur, the Nuba Mountains, the Blue Nile, eastern Sudan, and elsewhere.

According to World Bank reports, approximately (70%) of public spending in Sudan until (2010) was concentrated in the capital and the Center, whilst more than (50%) of rural schools in western and southern Sudan operated without qualified teachers or adequate infrastructure. (World Bank Education Sector Review, 2012).

A study issued by the (UNICEF) in (2016) showed that:

The illiteracy rate in Darfur states exceeds (65%). Only (12%) of girls in marginalized areas complete secondary school. Poverty rates exceed (80%) in states such as West Darfur and South Kordofan, compared to (20-25%) in Khartoum and the River Nile states.

Second: Marginalization isn’t a Coincidence, but a Systematic Policy:

Marginalization in Sudan wasn’t the result of administrative weakness, but rather a political, cultural, and economic project based on ethnic, regional, and religious discrimination. The most prominent tools of this marginalization are:

1. Discrimination in the Distribution of Resources and Services: Large areas have been deprived of development and infrastructure, despite being home to vast natural resources. For example, the region of Darfur contributes approximately (45%) of overall livestock, however, it receives less than (5%) of the budget for agricultural and veterinary services. (UNDP Sudan Report, 2018).

2. Exclusion from Senior Positions and the State: According to a report issued by Transparency International in (2020), (85%) of leadership positions in Sudan after the revolution remained under the control of the Center.

3. An Exclusionary Education and Representation System: The education system has been crafted in a manner that perpetuates a monolithic cultural hegemony and weakens the opportunities of the marginalized in competing fairly.

Third: “Technocracy” as a Continuation of the Social Hierarchy:

When some propose the concept of a “technocratic government” today, without changing the historical and political standards of representation, it effectively means re-empowering those who:

– Have been educated over decades of class and geographic bias.

– Have been granted opportunities for career advancement, scholarships, and presence in State institutions.

Meanwhile, millions of Sudanese citizens remain deprived of the most basic requirements of “competence” simply because they were born in the wrong region, spoke a language other than Arabic, or were part of an undesirable “ethnic” identity.

Therefore, any discussion in regards to the abstract concept of “competence” fails to understand the structural roots of deprivation and exclusion, and empties the project of change of its fundamental content.

Fourth: A Brief Comparison with the American Experience After Emancipation:

After the emancipation of slaves in the United States in (1865), the ideas of “qualified development” and “educated white government” were put forward instead of providing African Americans with real opportunities for political participation. This led to:

– Black people were prevented from voting through the Jim Crow Act.

– They were confined to low-wage jobs.

– They were denied access to quality higher education.

Despite the presence of a number of prominent Black people, the discourse of “competence” was used with a considerable dose of deceit to protect the old white hegemony, just as it is used in the Sudanese context.

The same scenario took place in post-apartheid South Africa, where the forces of white bureaucracy obstructed efforts to transfer economic and social power to Black people, despite the political end of apartheid.

Fifth: The Nature of the Dilemma in Sudan isn’t Technical:

The Sudanese issue isn’t the result of any lack of technical skills, indeed its due to:

– The absence of historical justice.

– The absence of genuine political representation for the marginalized, rather than the use of a strategy of misleading representation.

– The hegemony practiced by an elite that has yet to part with the legacy of colonialism and perceiving the State as a private farm.

– The crisis is existential and requires a comprehensive re-establishment of the State, which cannot be achieved by “technocrats” alone.

Sixth: Yes to Competence, But as Part of a Liberal Political Project:

Technocrats and those with technical competencies are certainly needed, nonetheless, they cannot replace political leadership with a historical and social awareness. Leadership for the next phase ought to:

– Be based on a vision of historical justice.

– Recognize the structural crimes committed against the marginalized.

– Integrate the sons and daughters of marginalized areas into the core of power, not on its margins.

– Be accompanied by affirmative action programs.

(Affirmative Action)

It includes measures such as:

– Allocating quotas in jobs and scholarships to people from marginalized areas.

– Educational and health support programs in marginalized areas.

– Effective political empowerment through participatory tools.

In Conclusion: No technocrats without historical justice… and no State without dismantling the structure of marginalization:

The call for a “technocratic government” in Sudan, as proposed by the de facto authority in Port Sudan —led by Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan and his Prime Minister Kamil Idris— is no more than an attempt to reproduce an old elitist ploy camouflaged in a new mask.

Instead of addressing the major questions regarding the structural roots of Sudan’s crises: marginalization, racism, and the monopolization of power and wealth, this discourse recycles the failure of the old State by beautifying it with the language of efficiency and technical neutrality, without daring to dismantle the structure that created the very exclusion.

Al-Burhan’s statements and Kamil Idris’s projects are based on:

– Recentralizing the State in favor of Khartoum-Port Sudan without recognizing the multiple identities and aspirations of the Sudanese people.

– Calling for a Constitutional Conference without providing any pre-established rules or guarantees of representation for the marginalized, which returns the negotiating game to the same elitist table.

– Promoting the concept of “neutral technocrats” from within a historical elite system of self-interest doesn’t -in any way, shape or form- reflect the social, political, and cultural diversity of the Sudanese society.

This vision, quite clearly, is merely an extension of the same behavior practiced by the Central elite that monopolized power in Sudan for decades, leading to its fragmentation, civil wars, secession, coups, and famines. Its a recipe for keeping the marginalized marginalized, the impoverished in their poverty, and the victims without justice.

In contrast, there is no future for a modern, democratic, stable, and pluralistic Sudan except through a liberal political project that re-establishes the State on new and radical foundations. In this context, the “Founding” Charter, adopted by the forces of the marginalized, resistance, and freedom, represents a rational, realistic, and historical framework for building a just State. Its most prominent features include:

1. Recognizing ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious diversity as a source of strength, not a threat.

2. The right to self-determination as a political tool to end marginalization, not to dismantle the country.

3. Secularism as a guarantee of equal citizenship, free from the exploitation of religion for hegemony.

4. Historical justice, not just transitional justice, i.e., acknowledging accumulated structural injustice and redressing the damage.

5. Dismantling the repressive apparatus and rebuilding the Sudanese Armed Forces on nationalist, not authoritarian, foundations.

6. Affirmative action and the deliberate empowerment of the sons and daughters of marginalized areas at all levels of power, education, and the economy.

7. An alliance between civilian and Armed Forces that emerged in the context of resistance, not in the context of an elite bargain to build a new national Army.

Only with this vision can Sudan break free from the shackles of its unjust history and create a future where the people are not governed from the desks of elites, but rather through a liberal will that represents those who have suffered and were excluded, a will that possesses the courage to rebuild the State from its roots.

Therefore, a technocratic government without historical justice and without a founding project that restores dignity to the victims and provides them with the tools of leadership is merely a soft facade to preserve the old in its new guise. The time for the people has come, and the time for the elite and failure is over.

The struggle continues, and victory is certain.

(Traditional and modern electronic research tools were used in producing this series of articles).