| dc.description.abstract | During the Angolo-Egyptian condominium administration from 1900 to 1956, the British adopted the policy of indirect rule in the Sudan just as Britain did in the rest of its colonies throughout Africa during the colonial era. The policy of indirect rule dealt with communities through their chiefs and other tribal leaders. Separate development was the order of the day and in a country like the Sudan which was multi-cultural, multi-religious with diverse geographical regions, this policy of separate development was well pronounced. Northern Sudan is desert and semi-desert, Arab and Muslim; on the other hand the Southern Sudan is grassland and forest, African and Christian. The North is more developed than the South educationally, politically and economically. The condominium rule favored the North at the expense of the South by perpetuating this unjust and unequal development. Worse still, the condominium rule enacted the "Closed Districts Ordinance of 1922" whereby the South and the Nuba Mountains were excluded from contact with the North administratively, socially and politically. This policy was meant to "protect" the lifestyles of the southern people. Ironically this policy was reversed in 1947 when the Close Districts Ordinance was annalled and the southerners were forced to join the Northerners in the preparation for independence. Obviously, independence found the Southerners ill-prepared for it. This is because the southerners were not consulted during the discussions that led to self-rule in 1953-1955. So, in 1955. the southern soldiers under the “Equatoria Corp” mutinied on 18th August 1955, just only a few months before independence day on 1st October 1956. This triggered off a series of mutinies that have been punctuated with "dishonoured agreements" since then. Many Southern Sudanese refugees have also been pouring into the neighbouring countries of Uganda, Kenya, Congo, Ethiopia and the Central African Republic since the eruption of civil war in the Sudan in 1955. This influx of the Sudanese refugees into these countries has caused poor relations between the host countries and various Sudanese governments. It should be noted that many ethnic groups in Africa sprawl across artificial boundaries that were arbitrarily created by the imperialists during the partition of Africa. It is this partition of Africa that has been responsible for the creation of trans-national ethnicity conflicts. Inter and intra-ethnic conflicts are rampant between Sudan and its neighbours. For instance, tribes such as Acholi, Madi, Kuku, Lugbara, and Kakwa are in both Sudan and Uganda. The same British policy of indirect rule and separate development affected Uganda as, it did to Sudan. In Uganda, the British favored the South at the expense of the north. The south had many schools and was, thus, more advanced than the north both educationally and economically. When Uganda was granted independence in 1962, the civil service was handed over to the highly educated bureaucrats from the south while the army was controlled by less educated manpower from the north. The result was a lopsided structure of power sharing in favour of the south. Although Dr. Milton Obote, the prime minister then (and later president) was from the north, the reigns of power were in the hands of southerners. But in a dramatic draconian behaviour, Dr. Obote tried to suppress the southerners by using the political powers held by Kabaka Mutesa II in 1966. Mutesa went to exile in Britain where he died some years later. Notwithstanding this dramatic move, internal power struggle between civilian politicians and the military resulted in Dr. Milton Obote's overthrow in 1971 by a military Junta under Amin Dada who ruled the country outrageously till he was also overthrown in 1979. The conflict that ensued caused exodus of many Ugandans, this time, from the north into the Sudan. Surely, it is these trans-national ethnicity groups that have hitherto crossed and re-crossed the border between Sudan and Uganda as many times as there have been conflicts in Uganda or Sudan. As a result of trans-national ethnicity there has been conflict and co-operation between the two countries. Co-operation is most of the time at inter-communal level. This is obvious in their frequent cross border economic transactions. Conflict is mostly at interstate level, and is fueled by the reception and the hosting of political refugees. In spite of conflict, it is a belief of the researcher that transitional ethnicity is a viable tool to be exploited by Sudan and Uganda for economic development, particularly when the two countries adopt internal favourable conditions including respect of human rights and equality of citizens, something which is strongly recommended in the study. | en_US |
