Med et relativt fritt og rettferdig valg kan SPLM styrke sin posisjon på landsbasis, men hvor sikker kan partiet være på at det skjer? For NCP er det høyst usikkert hvor stor oppslutning de vil få i et rimelig rettferdig valg, men kanskje ønsker de likevel å gjennomføre et kontrollert valg i 2009 for å kunne styrke sin posisjon vis a vis den internasjonale straffedomstolen?

Her kan du lese Elwathig Kameirs (SPLM) analyse av ulike scenarioer knyttet til avholdelse av valg i Sudan. Til tross for at mange av scenarioene vil innebære voldelige konflikter, argumenterer han for valg er den eneste veien til langvarig fred i Sudan.  

Nedenfor kan du lese John Asworths kommentar til tidspunktet for gjennomføringen av valget og hvem som tjener på en utsettelse.

For mer informasjon se SPLMs uttlalelse om at de ikke aksepterer en utsettelse av valget, Sudan Tribune 7. november 2008.

Se også El-Tahir El-fakis kronikk "Hvorfor ønsker NCP valg i Sudan?". Han er Speaker for the Legislative Council/JEM og kronikken ble publisert i Sudan Tribune 6. november 2008.

John Asworths kommentar

The SPLM (and indeed all those who want to see democracy in Sudan)
face a real dilemma. Any attempt to delay the elections will cause
suspicion, and will be perceived as playing into the hands of the
NCP's attempts to delay and undermine the implementation of the CPA.
On the other hand, if the elections take place in July 2009 as
planned, there are huge problems. The electoral commission will find
it hard to complete its preparations in time, holding elections during
the rainy season will mean that many parts of the south will not have
proper access to the ballot box, and of course Darfur remains a
problem due to security. Ironically holding the elections on time is
to the benefit of the NCP in terms of winning seats, while delaying it
will be perceived as being to the benefit of the NCP in terms of
undermining the CPA. A lose-lose situation for SPLM and other
democrats?

With the benefit of hindsight, future historians may judge that
holding elections during the Interim Period was a mistake. During the
IGAD negotiations democracy seemed like a good idea. Well, democracy
is always a good idea, isn't it? And most people in Sudan were eager
to get rid of the National Islamic Front military dictatorship,
rebranded as the NCP, as soon as possible by any means, so early
elections seemed like an ideal opportunity. This became more
attractive when the compromise of a six year Interim Period was
agreed. SPLM had asked for 2 years only (in which case there would
almost certainly have been no elections), while NCP demanded 10 years.

But the Interim Period is a cease-fire between the warring parties, a
framework for peace rather than a fully-fledged peace agreement, a
partnership between only two parties. Arguably it would now make sense
to allow those two parties to continue in government together until
the end of the Interim Period to implement the CPA which they alone
signed. After the referendum in 2011 the new political dispensation
will become clear and that would be the natural time for democratic
elections, whether in a united Sudan or in two newly-separated
nations.

Of course cancelling elections is not a viable political option and
would now cause more problems than it would solve. But holding
elections is also immensely problematic. Lose-lose?

John