Open Elections in Sudan? Hardly

The title of yesterday's article in The Guardian is misleading: "Sudan votes in first open elections in 24 years." The paper is using the term "open" quite loosely. On the face of it, yes, Sudan's first multi-party elections began yesterday — but that's where it ends, with only a superficial commitment to openness that is more appearance than reality.

At this point, I feel a bit like a broken record on the matter, having written numerous times about the notable lack of conditions for free and fair elections, and the paltry commitment of the nation's ruling parties to put them into place. In the last few months, numerous policy shops issued report after report documenting and criticizing irregularities in the census, voter registration, campaigning, and the stunning lack of legal reform — mandated by the much-vaunted Comprehensive Peace Agreement — that would have opened space for freedom of expression and association in advance of the crucial polls.

Events of the last two weeks in particular could have turned the tide or at least provided the impetus for some degree of change. Yes, the opposition could've/should've gotten their act together and been a force to reckon with a year ago, but more support from Sudan's various international stakeholders might have given more weight to the demands put forth last week by the opposition groups and their considerable constituencies. Instead, the government of the United States, at least, seems content with elections that will be as "free and fair as possible," without considering whether they are free and fair enough.

The next few days of polling will be interesting to watch — even more so, though, will be the announcement of results and the response both inside and outside Sudan. For those of you eager to be "in the know," sign up at Save Darfur for a special "Election Alert" email list with daily updates, analysis, and headlines.

Photo credit: UN Photo/Tim McKulka