Who's Watching Whom?

We no sooner had descended from the Sudanese sky to a dirt airstrip than we were asked to immediately visit the commissioner in charge of the referendum process. It was something of a surprise because we've been going to that same village for over a decade delivering development programs and the request was unusual. He immediately asked us if we would be official observers of the referendum process. "You know our people," he ventured, "and they trust you."Naturally, we said we would take up the challenge, yet I recall walking away from his office thinking I wasn't really sure who the real observers were. Sure, industrialized nations had sent along official scrutineers to cover the entire region of the south and elsewhere to ensure the referendum was conducted honourably. And, yes, a team of global dignitaries would announce their conclusions once the voting was over and the counts were officially in. Media was everywhere, at least in Juba, the capital of the south, to follow all the special players and to broadcast their words and images to the world. Representatives from bordering African nations witnessed it all, knowing that a botched job would lead to severe regional unrest. NGOs gathered around their radios and TVs in both north and south Sudan biting their nails, hoping that violence wouldn't erupt.In the end, it was remarkable for the sheer blandness of it. Violence? Hardly any. Voting disputes? Negligible. Over-the-top celebrations? Not much. As I mentioned repeatedly in the "Winds of Change" videos I posted on this blog for the last two weeks, the international observers were stunned at the sheer efficiency of it.All of this attention in the West was merely the result of our late arrival to the story. The referendum literally jumped of the television screens and print media in the few weeks leading up to the pivotal vote but they had hardly mentioned anything of it previous to that point. It was an event that caught the world off-guard and in the intensity of the moment it was naturally assumed that some kind of emergency was in the offing.Yet to seasoned African observers this was a tale long in the telling. It was a determined and resourced plan that took six years to bring about. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement between north and south Sudan, signed in 2005, assured that the referendum would be included in the peace timeline. It provided the option for the people of south Sudan to choose their own future: unity or separation. My wife and I were at those meetings and we left with the same impression everyone else had: the south would vote for separation, in huge numbers. More importantly, they had six full years to prepare. While the rest of the world largely passed them by, the leaders of south Sudan were in the process of staging mini-miracles that largely went unnoticed. They organized civil society in a way that allowed for regional input, placed women in positions of importance and oversight, developed a workable constitution, and mostly held their anger in abeyance when infractions of the peace agreement occurred. Then they held country-wide elections and pulled them off. Finally, they conducted a referendum that was about as efficient as you could get. Over 90% of eligible voters showed up and made their choice. The stereotypical Western view of the process was that Africans - especially a nation that had been in civil war for over two decades - were incapable of producing such an outcome.  Yet even the leaders of north Sudan, who obviously weren't keen on the process, promised to respect the outcome, knowing exactly what it would be.All this left me to wonder, as I said, who was actually undertaking the observation in this entire affair. Everything the West asked south Sudan to do they accomplished. They sent their leaders to be trained. They elevated talented women through the ranks. They worked with their African Union partners. And they refused to be provoked back into conflict. That says something - a lot actually. This was a new nation that had been preparing for this moment for well over 20 years, following the brutalities of a lengthy civil war. And after doing all that they had been asked, they gathered as a people to watch the outside world. Affluent nations had made promises to help with emergency aid, development, and political instruction. Trade deals were offered, as were promises of business opportunities.In just three weeks the results of the referendum will be announced from Khartoum. Jimmy Carter, along with others, will vouch that the process was legitimate, and the outcome will overwhelmingly be for independence. Sudanese know it, and so they wait patiently observing us - the people who demanded the legitimacy of the process but who are now shocked that it happened. For Westerners, rather than looking at a troubled country in the process of political renewal, we are instead peering into a mirror. A major country in Africa did what we asked, in part because we promised reward if they succeeded. What do we see in that mirror? Willingness? Doubt? Inspiration? Prejudice? Likely all of the above. One thing is certain: we are now the ones under the microscope and the Sudanese watch and await our response.