On the eve of January 1, 1956, Sudan became a fully independent country ending several decades of Anglo-Egyptian condominium rule. Very few developing countries were as fortunate as Sudan, which gained independence during the post-World War II era. Sudan was then not only the largest Arab and African country, with a total land area nearly nine times the size of its former British colonial power, but also had a prosperous agricultural economy. The country inherited from its colonial rulers a well-functioning and efficient infrastructure that included a web of railways, Gordon Memorial college -- later renamed the University of Khartoum, the Gezira scheme, competent civil service, a fair formal judiciary system, and a strong local currency where the value of the Sudanese pound was more than two U.S. dollars. Most importantly, the country was born with a vibrant multi-party democratic system. Unlike some former African and Asian colonies, Sudan maintained very good relations with its former colonizers. The general public was very optimistic and jubilant on the eve of Sudan's independence. During the 1950s and 1960s, the Sudanese enjoyed glorious success in sports, music, and foreign diplomacy. For example, Sudan hosted the most successful Arab summit in the history of the Arab League in 1967. This was the Sudan fondly referred to by the Sudanese people as the "beautiful past." Today, Sudan has been torn by conflicts and plagued by poverty, divided into two countries since 2011.
What went wrong? Two key issues contributed to major conflict in Sudan, the issue of national identity and the debate surrounding the role of Islam in public life. The founding fathers of modern Sudan failed to lay a strong foundation of national identity that would unify all Sudanese ethnic and religious groups. At the heart of the national identity issue are such questions as whether Sudan should wholeheartedly embrace its Arab or African identity. Unrest in southern Sudan exacerbated this problem and fueled uprisings and civil conflicts. The civil war in South Sudan, once considered Africa's largest civil war, resulted from deep negative sentiment among southerners who believed that the Arabs in the North controlled power throughout the country. Indeed, the former British colonial administration in Sudan planted seeds of political mistrust between the northerners and southerners through its controversial policy of "closed districts," which limited social and political interactions between the groups.
Although the role of Islam in public life is closely related to the issue of national identity, it has unique political effects in the north, as two key political actors -- the Sudanese Communist party and the Islamic movement -- employed it in different ways to gain political benefits and seize power. In 1969, the Neimiri regime, backed by the Sudanese Communist party, adopted strong socialist policies including the celebration of Marxist teachings within a very traditional Muslim majority country and the national confiscation of private businesses and small agricultural projects. These policies proved to be disastrous to the Sudanese national economy for several years to come. In contrast to Neimiri's socialist leanings, the Al-Bashir regime, backed by the Islamic National Front, has embarked upon a number of Islamization projects in education, banking, public life, and mobilization of youth from the Islamic movement to fight in the south during the early 1990s. However, this ambitious agenda aimed at significant social engineering led to extensive political corruption, poverty, expansion of government, and the decline of the middle class. The Al-Bashir regime adopted belligerent liberal economic policies to remove or significantly reduce government subsidies of education, healthcare, and basic food items. The social cost of these policies was enormously negative, and the resulting increases in school dropout rates and income inequality have impacted the once strong Sudanese social fabric. Today, many educated Sudanese youth view working outside their home country as the only conceivable way to achieve their dreams in life. Furthermore, the discovery of oil during the late 1990s in the southern part of Sudan, which provided revenue before the separation from the south, distorted the Sudanese national economy because it led to negligence of the agricultural sector.
Faced with increased international isolation and pressure, the Al-Bashir regime finally signed a comprehensive peace agreement (CPA) with the leaders of the Sudan Liberation Movement in 2005 that ended the civil war and eventually led to the separation of the South. After holding power for more than two decades, the Al-Bashir regime has recently initiated a national dialogue that is unlikely to end major political problems such as the conflicts in Dar Fur,southern Kordofan, and the Blue Nile once and for all.
The current political stalemate has been further complicated by the weakness of the Sudanese opposition parties. Although Sudan was a pioneer among Arab and African countries in terms of adopting liberal democracy, the country has hosted very weak political parties that are dominated by a small group of political elites. The political leadership of the 1960s continued to dominate Sudanese politics through the beginning of this millennium. As in many other Arab countries, the Sudanese political elites have rarely opted for such options as political retirement. The Sudanese have very little to celebrate on the 60th anniversary of their independence aside from the relative stability of Sudan in comparison with other countries experiencing Arab awakening.