The Dialectic of Self-Determination: Between Forced Unity and Fragmentation

Dr. Al-Haytham Al-Kindi Yousif
This article builds on a broader vision of transitioning Sudan from a “state of spoils” to a “state of production”. The author argues that the economic structure lies at the heart of the crisis—and therefore must also be the entry point to the solution—by enabling each region to benefit from its own resources, correcting historical injustices imposed by a centralised elite.
Yet this approach raises a legitimate concern:
If regions achieve economic self-sufficiency, will that fuel demands for secession?
Rather than avoiding this question—as Sudanese political elites have often done—the article confronts it directly, analysing the idea of self-determination rationally, beyond emotional or ideological reflexes.
From Political Tactic to Existential Demand
The concept of self-determination is not new in Sudan. It formally emerged in 1995 in the Asmara Declaration of the opposition, later becoming a legal reality through the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which ultimately led to South Sudan’s secession in 2011.
The key insight:
The problem was not self-determination itself—but the unwillingness of political actors to bear its consequences.
Today, however, the concept has fundamentally changed:
Before: A political demand used by elites
Now: A defensive reaction by communities
The current war has shattered the old social contract. Communities—especially those targeted along ethnic lines—no longer see unity as a guarantee of security or dignity.
Self-determination has therefore shifted from a negotiating tool to a survival mechanism.
The Collapse of the Social Contract
In many regions, citizens now perceive that:
The state cannot provide security
The centre cannot ensure development
Unity is not based on mutual obligation
Under such conditions, remaining within a single state becomes increasingly difficult to justify.
Thus, self-determination emerges not as a political luxury—but as a logical response to state failure.
The Real Response: Justice, Not Force
The author takes a clear position:
Secession should not be confronted through military force, but through justice and ideas.
Past experience shows that coercion fails.
Instead, the state must make unity meaningful.
This requires redefining justice:
Not equal outcomes, but equal opportunity
Advancement based on merit—not tribal or regional quotas
The article criticises quota-based systems—such as those embedded in the Juba Peace Agreement—arguing that they deepen division rather than resolve it.
When power is allocated by identity rather than competence:
Grievances multiply
Armed struggle becomes a pathway to political gain
National belonging erodes
From Marginal Regions to a National Trend
What is most alarming is the spread of secessionist thinking:
Historically conflict-affected regions (Darfur, Blue Nile, South Kordofan)
Now extending to riverine and coastal areas
This reflects a broader crisis:
The logic of fragmentation is no longer regional—it is becoming systemic.
A Difficult Truth: Secession as a Lesser Evil?
The article introduces a provocative but important idea:
If all avenues for rebuilding trust fail, then peaceful separation may be preferable to endless war.
In this framing:
Better to be peaceful neighbours than hostile co-citizens
Separation becomes a last-resort stabilisation mechanism, not a goal
The Root Cause: Political Economy of “Spoils”
The deeper issue lies in the economic model:
Resource distribution based on patronage and extraction
Investment diverted from development to conflict
War economies replacing productive economies
The author asks a critical question:
How would Sudan look today if war resources had been invested in development?
The Way Forward: Rebuilding Unity on New Foundations
The proposed solution is neither forced unity nor passive acceptance of fragmentation, but a third path:
Transform the state itself
From rent-seeking → productive economy
From central dominance → regional empowerment
From identity-based entitlement → citizenship-based equality
Redefine unity
Unity must become:
Voluntary, not imposed
Based on justice and equal citizenship
Sustained by shared economic benefit
Final Insight
The central message is stark but constructive:
The real battle is not between unity and secession—
but between injustice and justice.
If Sudan succeeds in building a just, productive, and inclusive state:
Unity will become a rational choice
If it fails:
Fragmentation will become a rational outcome
Strategic takeaway (aligned with your broader themes):
This piece strongly connects with the recurring idea across your materials:
Sudan’s crisis is not fundamentally political or military—it is structural and economic.
Without shifting from “state of spoils” to “state of production”,
neither unity nor stability can be sustained.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=13438