environmental degradation as a cause of conflict in - Steiner Graphics

Native Administration, i.e. Tribal leadershipNative administration is one of the most controversial issues in Sudanese politics.Even at its very inception in the early 1920s, it was not welcomed by leaders of thenationalist movement. It was perceived as a government creation that was meantto serve the purposes of colonial rule. Following the end of foreign rule, radicalelements in the political parties, including elements within the conservative parties,have continued to be hostile to native administrators (see Bakheit in Hasan1985).Opponents of native administration are probably justified in their attitude to thesystem. The colonial rule really wanted to rely on native administrators rather thanon the hawkish leaders of the nationalist movement. On several counts they werepreferred to the urban educated elite. For example, they were the ones who hadbeen entrusted with the implementation of the so-called Indirect Rule i.e. rule bySudanese natives. Secondly, when a version of a local government was founded in1937, councils were dominated by appointed tribal leaders. Again, when legislativeinstitutions were created at the national and regional levels, their members werepredominantly native administrators, their families or sympathizers. Some of themcontinued to dominate the political scene in the rural areas even after the foreignrule came to an end in 1956. A resolution was passed by the October radical government(1965) for the dissolution of the system. Then the May Revolution regime,starting 1969, had actually dissolved the system in 1970, abolishing its topmostleaders, i.e. the nazirs and other chiefs.One aspect of native administration that has often been overlooked by its opponentsis its role in maintaining law and order in the rural areas. It is the bestand cheapest institution of governance, when communities are at a traditional orsemi-traditional stage of development, particularly in a country as vast as the Sudan.Following the weakening of the system by the October caretaker government’sresolution and the actual dissolution of the system in 1970, lawlessness prevailedamong the rural communities, particularly in Darfur. People took the law into theirown hands and started using force for the settlement of disputes. To a large extentthe proliferation of tribal and/or ethnic violent conflicts in the Darfur region maywell be attributed to the weakening and untimely dissolution of the system of nativeadministration.The period, 1916-1956, was notable for peaceful coexistence among groups inDarfur. Tribal leaders were not only able to maintain law and order within theircommunities, but they were also able to establish symbiotic relations among differentethnic groups. They were instrumental in nurturing communal institutions andpractices that contributed to the promotion of peaceful coexistence among localgroups (e.g. organising tribal festivals, taking wives from other groups, exchanging73