Absent Leadership in Sudan: Systemic or Traditional Leader? (4-4)

Dr. Ismail Sati

Part Four: (Addressing Tribal Conflicts and Societal Disputes)

In the third part, we reviewed several long-standing dilemmas that Sudan has continued to suffer from and explained the urgent need to adopt systemic thinking in addressing these issues, which include:

Tribal conflicts and societal disputes

Internal displacement and refugee crises

Collapse of public services (healthcare, education, infrastructure)

Hyperinflation and economic collapse

Youth unemployment and brain drain

National identity crisis and social cohesion

Foreign interference and cycles of dependency

The list goes on, but for brevity, we will limit ourselves to these. Naturally, one might conclude that some or all of these issues led to the war that erupted in 2023—a precise conclusion.

Now, we will select one of these dilemmas as an example: “Addressing Tribal Conflicts and Societal Disputes in Darfur.”

Addressing Tribal Conflicts and Societal Disputes in Darfur:

1) Understanding the Crisis from a Systemic Perspective

Key Characteristics of the Crisis:

Cyclical outbreaks of violence between tribal or ethnic groups.

Systemic components rooted in historical grievances, land disputes, unequal distribution of natural resources, political marginalization, and cultural/ethnic hostility.

The crisis worsens due to state fragility, weak central authority, political elite interference, and the absence of effective conflict-resolution mechanisms.

Fueled by vengeance and emotional grievances passed down through generations.

Systemic Structure of the Crisis:

Reinforcing Feedback Loops: Acts of violence provoke retaliation, leading to more violence and further erosion of trust.

Balancing Feedback Loops: Occasionally, local reconciliation sessions emerge to promote harmony between warring tribes, but these are often weak compared to reinforcing loops, accelerating the escalation of the problem.

Delays: Such as the delayed effects of peacebuilding or justice efforts, creating a perception of ineffectiveness.

2) Tracing Patterns and Building a Systemic Map

Creating a Causal Loop Diagram (CLD)

This diagram illustrates the dynamics of escalating tribal conflict in Darfur:

Key Variables to Include in the Diagram:

Level of violence (Reinforcing, denoted by R)

Retaliation (Reinforcing, R)

Fear and mistrust (Reinforcing, R)

Arms proliferation (Reinforcing, R)

Youth poverty and unemployment (Reinforcing, R)

Political incitement (Reinforcing, R)

Government response (Balancing, B)

Local mediation initiatives (Balancing, B)

Loops Represented in the Diagram:

Negative Reinforcing Loop: Violence → Retaliation → More violence → Erosion of trust → Rising tensions → More violence.

Positive Balancing Loop: Mediation initiatives → Community dialogue → Reduced fear → Restored trust → Decreased violence.

3) Applying System Archetypes

Escalation Archetype

Each side perceives the other’s actions as a threat and responds with further escalation.

Potential Solutions: Third-party mediation, disarmament, inter-community dialogue platforms, revising educational curricula.

Tragedy of the Commons

Exploitation of scarce resources (e.g., water, pastures, gold) leads to conflict.

Potential Solutions: Cooperative resource management, community agreements on resource-sharing.

Fixes that Fail

Quick fixes (e.g., deploying security forces) temporarily calm the situation but lead to worse outcomes later.

Potential Solutions: Focus on root causes—social justice, political representation, community trust-building, education.

4) Steps to Apply Dynamic Systems Thinking

Step 1: Defining Systemic Boundaries

Focus on a specific region (e.g., Darfur) or national level?

Who are the key actors? (Tribes, government, organizations, displaced persons, traditional leadership…)

Step 2: Data Collection

Qualitative data: Testimonies, NGO reports, community narratives.

Quantitative data: Number of conflicts, displacement rates, resource distribution.

Step 3: Building a Stock-and-Flow Model

To illustrate, imagine a bathtub (stock) with an inflow and outflow (flows). This model tracks how much water is in the tub and the rate at which it enters and exits. Applying this to ethnic conflicts in Darfur:

Stock: Something that accumulates or depletes over time (e.g., level of social trust and peaceful coexistence between Arab and non-Arab communities in Darfur).

Inflows (What Increases Trust):

Fair representation of all groups.

Equitable distribution of land, resources, and grazing rights.

Community dialogue and reconciliation programs.

Peacebuilding projects (e.g., education, joint economic initiatives).

External support (humanitarian aid, development).

Outflows (What Decreases Trust):

Violent incidents and retaliatory attacks.

Marginalization or discrimination.

Unjust resource distribution (especially land and water).

Inflammatory rhetoric from leaders or media.

Arms proliferation and militia recruitment.

Weak or biased justice and law enforcement institutions.

Step 4: Scenario Simulation

What happens if reconciliation efforts increase?

What is the impact of drought or resource scarcity?

How does sustained political incitement change the situation?

Tools like Vensim or InsightMaker can simulate these scenarios and identify effective leverage points.

5) Leverage Points

Leverage points are strategic areas within a system where small efforts can yield significant, lasting change. Identifying them requires systemic insight. Examples for Darfur:

Changing Mental Models:

Shift discourse from tribal identities (e.g., “Arabs vs. Fur/Masalit/Zaghawa”) to “We are all Darfuris” by emphasizing shared history.

Impact: Long-term but transformative—alters how people perceive each other and envision a shared future.

Enforcing Laws:

Develop fair land dispute mechanisms balancing herders’ and farmers’ rights.

Impact: Addresses structural conflict drivers, especially resource-related tensions.

Nation First:

Strengthen reconciliation mechanisms and break revenge cycles.

Impact: Gradually teaches communal coexistence—strong long-term effects.

Time Delays:

Educate communities that change takes time and patience.

Impact: Builds hope and trust in the future.

Information Flow:

Ensure all groups access accurate peace negotiation updates, land rights, and aid distribution.

Establish early-warning systems to detect and escalate conflicts before they worsen.

Impact: Reduces rumors, misunderstandings, and builds trust.

Now, let’s sketch a causal loop diagram for the system of “Escalating Communal Violence.”

Variables:

Inter-group violence

Desire for revenge

Fear and mistrust between groups

Arms proliferation

Youth unemployment and marginalization

Political incitement along tribal/ethnic lines

Weak government response

Local mediation and trust-building efforts

Observations on Causal Relationships:

Increased inter-group violence → Increased desire for revenge.

Increased desire for revenge → More inter-group violence (reinforcing loop).

Increased fear/mistrust → More self-armament.

Political incitement → Deepens fear and division.

Weak federal/state government allows causal loops to persist unchecked.

Local peace sessions act as balancing loops but face challenges (lack of resources, lost credibility).

Conclusion

This was a practical example of how dynamic systems thinking can address Sudan’s chronic, entrenched problems. Their persistence stems from fragmented approaches—tackling one symptom or cause without seeing the interconnected systems. Such solutions not only fail but often worsen the problem. Like treating a headache with endless painkillers without diagnosing its root causes, this can lead to graver consequences.

Most, if not all, of Sudan’s constitutional leaders since independence suffer from “paradigm blindness”—a conceptual, not organic, ailment. It mirrors the fable of the six blind men describing an elephant: one felt the trunk (a tree), another the ear (a fan), the tail (a rope), and so on. Each was right in his limited perspective but wrong about the whole. Only by collaborating could they accurately describe the elephant. Similarly, systemic problems require collective, holistic vision—not fragmented, narrow perspectives.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=5367