About the Report

This report examines Sudan’s popular consultation, an ongoing 

process whereby the people of the Sudanese states of Southern 

Kordofan and Blue Nile will democratically and popularly assess 

the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement and determine 

whether it satisfactorily reflects the aspirations of the people. 

If not, the two states will negotiate with the government of 

Sudan to remedy any defects in the agreement in order to 

reach a final settlement of the decades-long Sudanese civil 

war. This report seeks to explain what popular consultation is, 

how it is likely to unfold, what the metrics are for measuring 

success, and what roles the international community might 

play. In addition, the report describes how a successful process 

could transform Sudanese politics and governance, and how 

a neglected or mismanaged process could destabilize not 

just Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, but all Sudan. In other 

words, it explains why popular consultation matters.

Jason Gluck is a senior rule of law adviser in USIP’s Rule of Law 

Center of Innovation. He leads USIP’s rule of law projects in 

Iraq and Sudan and heads the Institute’s constitution-making, 

peacebuilding, and national reconciliation program. The 

author is grateful to research assistant Warren Wilson for his 

contributions to this report.

1200 17th Street NW • Washington, DC 20036 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063

Special Report 260 November 2010

© 2010 by the United States Institute of Peace. 

All rights reserved.

Jason Gluck

Why Sudan’s Popular 

Consultation Matters

Summary

•	 Largely unnoticed outside the region, the Sudanese states of Southern Kordofan and Blue 

Nile have begun the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA)–mandated process of popular 

consultation, which permits Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile to either adopt the CPA as the 

final settlement between the two states and the Government of Sudan (GoS) or renegotiate 

the CPA to remedy any shortcomings and reach a final settlement.

•	 The first phase of the popular consultation process involves civic education campaigns to 

inform the two states’ populations of the contents of the CPA and the issues at stake. The 

second phase is the consultations themselves, which are to be conducted by a commission 

in each state. The results of the consultations will be reported to the state assemblies and 

inform the positions taken by the states during negotiations with the central government.

•	 A successful popular consultation could begin to transform Sudanese politics by realigning political interests from political parties to the states and could provide a test case for 

new governance structures between the center and the states. A neglected or mismanaged 

process could destabilize not just Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, but all of Sudan.

•	 The international community can contribute to a successful process through financial 

assistance, monitoring and reporting, promoting reconciliation within the population, and 

engaging directly with Khartoum and Juba to smooth negotiations. It might also anticipate possible procedural challenges and prepare to engage in creative and quiet diplomacy 

should the need arise. 

Introduction

With international attention focused on the 2011 referendum and the possible secession of 

southern Sudan, with little fanfare and largely unnoticed outside the region, officials and 

civil society leaders in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states have begun the popular consultation mandated under the CPA. During this process, the two states will decide whether 

the CPA is a satisfactory “final settlement” of the twenty-one-year civil war, and, if not, 

United States Institute of Peace www.usip.org

SPECIAL REPORT

Contents

Background 2

The Popular Consultation Process 2

What Is a Successful Popular Consultation? 3

How Popular Consultation Could Affect 

the Rest of Sudan 4

How the International Community 

Can Help 7

Conclusion 9
2 

negotiate with the government of Sudan to remedy “any shortcomings in the constitutional, 

political, and administrative arrangements of the Agreement.”1

Background

Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile lie between north and south Sudan. In the 1980s, many 

people from these two states, feeling they had been victims of oppression, discrimination, 

and human rights violations at the hands of the Khartoum government, joined southern 

Sudan in the civil war against the north.2 Rich in oil and minerals, the site of a dam that 

generates electricity for much of the north, and home to both Arab and black African peoples, these two states were the front lines during the civil war and bore much of the brunt 

of its death and devastation. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed or displaced3 and 

societies were torn apart, as the Nuba, Funj, and Uduk peoples largely sided with the south 

and the Misseriya and other Arabs (Hawazma and Awlad Himaid) fought with the north.4

When the GoS and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM)/Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) began negotiating the terms of peace in 2002—what would eventually 

become the CPA—Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile were again caught between the north 

and south. Many people in the two states supported the SPLM and fought with the SPLA, 

in many cases with the express goal of achieving independence from Sudan. At the same 

time, the loyalties of the populations were mixed, a majority of them were Muslim (unlike 

the overwhelmingly Christian and animist south), they were not ethnically linked with 

southerners, and the two states were geographically situated north of the acknowledged 

1956 north-south border, making it difficult to grant Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile the 

self-determination given to the south and Abyei.5

The compromise was the CPA Protocol on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Two States 

of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile in 2004, which granted the states a democratic form 

of government, significant devolution of authority and wealth, and cultural and religious 

rights. Instead of a referendum for self-determination, the protocol presumed the two states 

would remain part of north Sudan (in the event of secession) but permitted them to either 

adopt the CPA as the final settlement between the two states and the GoS or renegotiate 

the CPA to remedy any shortcomings and reach a final settlement. That negotiation is the 

current popular consultation process.

The Popular Consultation Process

The CPA declares that popular consultation is a “democratic right” subject to the “will of the 

people of the two states through their respective democratically elected legislatures.”6 It 

calls for the state legislatures to either endorse the CPA or negotiate new peace terms with 

the GoS.7 In response, Sudan’s National Assembly passed the Popular Consultation Organization Law in December 2009, charging the newly elected state assemblies with establishing 

commissions to assess and evaluate the CPA, with due consideration for the “views of the 

people of the state.” Through broad consultations, the people are given an opportunity to 

either endorse and ratify the CPA or deem it as having failed to meet their needs and aspirations, requiring the states and central government to negotiate a new agreement. Should 

negotiations fail to result in a new agreement, the law calls for mediation conducted by the 

Council of States8—and, should the mediation fail, arbitration conducted by an “agreed 

upon body.”9 This entire process is statutorily meant to conclude by July 9, 2011—the end 

date of the interim period of the CPA.10

Popular consultation is not a referendum for independence or an opportunity to secede 

and join the south. Stripped of its populist and democratic rhetoric, it is a negotiation over 

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily 

reflect the views of the United States Institute of Peace, 

which does not advocate specific policy positions.

To request permission to photocopy or reprint materials, 

e-mail: permissions@usip.org

About the Institute

The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, 

nonpartisan institution established and funded by Congress. 

Its goals are to help prevent and resolve violent conflicts, 

promote post-conflict peacebuilding, and increase conflict 

management tools, capacity, and intellectual capital worldwide. The Institute does this by empowering others with 

knowledge, skills, and resources, as well as by its direct 

involvement in conflict zones around the globe.

Board of Directors

J. Robinson West (Chair), Chairman, PFC Energy, Washington, 

D.C. • George E. Moose (Vice Chairman), Adjunct Professor 

of Practice, The George Washington University, Washington, 

D.C. • Anne H. Cahn, Former Scholar in Residence, American 

University, Washington, D.C. • Chester A. Crocker, James R. 

Schlesinger Professor of Strategic Studies, School of Foreign 

Service, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. • Ikram U. 

Khan, President, Quality Care Consultants, LLC., Las Vegas, 

Nev. • Kerry Kennedy, Human Rights Activist • Stephen D. 

Krasner, Graham H. Stuart Professor of International Relations at Stanford University • Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor 

of Law, George Mason University, Arlington, Va. • Judy Van 

Rest, Executive Vice President, International Republican 

Institute, Washington, D.C. • Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice 

President, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 

Members Ex Officio

Michael H. Posner, Assistant Secretary of State for 

Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor • James N. Miller, 

Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy •

Ann E. Rondeau, Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy; President, 

National Defense University • Richard H. Solomon, 

President, United States Institute of Peace (nonvoting) 
 3

the distribution of power and wealth between the two states and the GoS, as well as the 

resolution of other matters, such as land, religious and cultural freedom, educational reform, 

and local security. What makes the consultation “popular” is the role of the people in determining whether the CPA as written and implemented adequately expresses the aspirations 

of the people of the two states, and if not, what shortcomings need to be rectified. 

Civic Education

To ascertain the will of the people, both Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile have already 

begun civic education and awareness campaigns to inform their populations of what popular 

consultation is (and is not), its purpose and goals, its core principles, how it will be conducted, and other background information people need to make an informed decision. Most 

residents of the two states have never read the CPA, making a decision over whether the 

agreement meets their “needs and aspirations” particularly challenging. 

Conducting the civic education and awareness campaign is a two-step process, both of 

which are already under way. The states agreed on the core content of the civic education, 

largely through a series of workshops comprising political and civil society leaders, native 

administration, religious leaders, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from the two 

states. Through these meetings, the two states also have agreed on the definition, code of 

conduct, and core principles of popular consultation, such as inclusiveness, transparency, 

and consensus building. The second step is to disseminate relevant information about 

popular consultation to the public. International donors are working with Sudanese NGOs 

to educate the public through workshops and local meetings, mobile theatre and music, 

a film, distribution of materials such as T-shirts, posters, and flyers, and train-the-trainer 

workshops for specific groups. Workshops have already taken place that target specific 

groups (such as women) and geographic localities.

Consultations

To convey residents’ opinions of the CPA, the state assemblies will form commissions to conduct consultations throughout each state, targeting different localities and interest groups, 

such as women, youth, unions, farmers, native administrations, and NGOs. Issue forums, 

where people discuss specific matters of interest such as security, land, and development, 

are also likely to take place. The Blue Nile established its commission on September 18, and 

will need to conclude the work of the commission by December 18, 2010. Southern Kordofan, because of a delay in state elections, will likely form its commission in early 2011.11

The commissions will receive public input from meetings; citizens also can submit written 

comments. Within three months of its establishment the commission should conduct its 

consultations; sort, analyze, and assemble public submissions; and present its findings to 

the State Assembly in a final report, which will then determine the “will of the people,” 

presumably through a vote in each legislature. 

What Is a Successful Popular Consultation?

With civic education just under way and the consultations not yet begun, it is impossible to 

know the positions each party will take during the consultation or what type of agreement 

is likely. That said, a successful popular consultation should result in two outcomes. First, 

it should contribute to peace and stability between the states and the central government 

by concluding in a “final settlement of the political conflict in [the States].”12 It is unkown 

whether that means affirming the CPA, amending or augmenting the existing provisions, 

or enhancing its enforcement and implementation. Whatever the outcome, it will need to 

Most residents of the two states 

have never read the CPA, making 

a decision over whether the 

agreement meets their “needs 

and aspirations” particularly 

challenging. 
4 

reflect the aspirations of the people of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile while also being 

acceptable to the GoS.

Second, it should contribute to intrastate reconciliation—particularly in Southern Kordofan where tensions are high among different ethnic groups, including the Misseriya and 

Nuba peoples, and violence over land and other issues persists. Popular consultation should 

promote intercommunal dialogue, assuage tensions, and identify solutions to the states’ 

most volatile challenges.

How Popular Consultation Could Affect the Rest of Sudan

Properly handled, popular consultation could transform Sudanese politics and governance. 

Neglected or mismanaged, the process could destabilize not just Southern Kordofan and 

Blue Nile, but all of Sudan. 

Redefining the Two-Party Political Paradigm

Whereas the Government of The Republic of the Sudan and the Sudan People’s 

Liberation Movement/Sudan People’s Liberation Army (hereinafter referred to as the 

“Parties”)...13

So begins the CPA and, thus, a new era of Sudanese politics—a bipolar political landscape 

dominated by the National Congress Party (NCP) and SPLM. This bipolarity should not be 

surprising. The CPA is first and foremost a peace agreement, which needed to be negotiated 

and signed by the parties to the civil war. But it also lays out a system of governance, both 

in its own right and through its explicit incorporation into Sudan’s Interim National Constitution (INC).14 As such, though the system applies to the entire nation, it heavily privileges 

the NCP and SPLM. It allocates the overwhelming majority of seats in parliament and senior 

government posts to the two parties and divides the vast majority of the nation’s wealth 

between the NCP-dominated government of national unity (GoNU) and the SPLM-dominated 

government of South Sudan (GoSS).15 In the five years since the commencement of the 

CPA, its parties have held a virtual monopoly of power in Sudan. Every major law has been a 

negotiation between leaders in Khartoum and Juba, sometimes to the detriment and marginalization of other political interests.16 Each of the salient agreements since the signing 

of the CPA—the referendum legislation, media and security legislation, the formation of the 

Referendum Commission, Abyei border dispute and arbitration, election law, election registration, the census—has been the product of this dichotomous political landscape, negotiated 

and drafted by NCP and SPLM leaders to reflect the two parties’ priorities and needs.

Popular consultation changes the political dynamic by aligning political interests within 

states. NCP and SPLM leaders from both states have identified increased (and enforceable) 

authority, revenue, and state development as the chief objectives of consultation,17 and 

with massive public interest in and high expectations for the process, NCP and SPLM statelevel officials feel they owe the people responsible stewardship of it, recognizing they will 

be held accountable if party politics undermines it.18 In these ways popular consultation 

has forged common interests and forced the parties at the state level to cooperate for their 

mutual benefit and the benefit of the states. 

In Southern Kordofan, where state-level elections have yet to occur, the incumbent 

governor (NCP) and deputy governor (SPLM) have cooperated and partnered, not only when 

speaking about popular consultation, but also in implementing a new census and voter 

registration in the run-up to the state elections, most likely in November or December 

2010, which are inextricably linked to the consultation.19 According to NCP and SPLM state 

officials, the consultation is “the key to peace and stability” and the “last chance for the 
 5

state.”20 For these reasons, “NCP and SPLM are working together with one vision on Popular 

Consultation”—a vision that both parties agree includes greater devolution of authority and 

wealth to the states.21

In Blue Nile, a three-day workshop held in May demonstrated the solidarity in the state. 

More than a thousand people came to listen to political leaders and express their own 

views on the popular consultation process. Both parties (and all attendees) were resolute in 

their support for and common vision of the process. Both SPLM and NCP officials called for 

changes in the amount of wealth and authority devolved to the state, and slogans such as 

“popular consultation is for the people” and “one state, one process” were common refrains. 

As the event ended, in a clear showing of common purpose, the entire audience chanted 

“Blue Nile” over and over as NCP and SPLM leaders signed an agreement on a code of conduct 

and core principles for popular consultation. Since then Blue Nile Governor Malik Agar (SPLM) 

and his former electoral opponent Farah Agar (NCP) have traveled around the state jointly 

conducting civic education workshops.22

The implications of the realignment of political interests are considerable. First, in Sudan, 

political files—ministerial portfolios, for example—have been allocated to entrench each 

party’s sphere of influence without much interaction or coordination between them. Popular 

consultation forces the NCP and SPLM, at least at the state level, to agree on one process 

and one result. This is especially true in Blue Nile, where the SPLM controls the governorship 

and the NCP controls the state assembly. Neither will be able to accomplish anything, or 

take credit for it, without cooperation with the other. Because state leaders from both parties must implement popular consultation jointly, ideally popular consultation will increase 

understanding and congeniality between the parties.

Second, the political realignment pulls power away from Khartoum and Juba and toward 

Damazin and Kadugli, the state capitals of Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan, respectively. 

This increases the likelihood of greater development in the states and improvement in the 

lives of ordinary Sudanese. 

Third, politics based on state interests has, so far, proved more inclusive than politics 

based on party. Under Sudan’s bipolar system, political interests outside the two parties 

were sometimes marginalized or ignored; under popular consultation, the needs, voices, and 

aspirations of the entire state already have begun to be heard; both states have included 

political and local leaders from outside the two main parties in the consultation process—in 

Southern Kordofan by consulting the Council of Wisemen, an informal group of civil society 

and political leaders, and in Blue Nile, as one example illustrates, by inviting every party’s 

candidate for governor to speak during a preelection popular consultation workshop.

That said, popular consultation has not eliminated party politics and rivalries altogether. SPLM leaders are quick to express real concern over NCP state officials’ abilities to 

remain supportive of popular consultation, should Khartoum pressure them to pull back. 

NCP officials retort that a unified state strengthens their position with NCP party leaders 

in Khartoum. In Southern Kordofan, they note, cooperation between NCP and SPLM state 

officials led to Khartoum’s acquiescence in postponing state elections to redo the census 

and registration, a move that went against the interests of the national NCP. Even without 

outside pressure it is reasonable to expect differences between the two parties to surface 

and increase as the process unfolds. Still, the convergence of NCP and SPLM views at the 

state level of popular consultation is real and significant. As one NCP state official noted, 

their families live in these states, underdevelopment affects their quality of life, and the 

consultation is for their benefit.23

Politics based on state interests 

has . . . proved more inclusive 

than politics based on party.
6 

Popular Consultation as a Test Case and Model for Post-2011 Sudan

Popular consultation provides a test case for the likelihood of meaningful political, administrative, and constitutional reform in post-2011 Sudan. As the interim period of the CPA 

ends, Sudan, regardless of the outcome of the southern referendum, will likely experience 

calls for a dialogue on devolution. Sudan’s highly centralized governmental system is clearly 

undesirable to much of the north, with leaders from Southern Kordofan, Blue Nile, Darfur, 

and the eastern states being the loudest voices calling for reform.24 Early indications are 

that, through popular consultation, Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan will seek greater 

shares of national revenue and revenue generated in their borders; more authority over local 

security; land reform, including recognition of local and customary ownership, access, and 

use; and greater cultural and religious equality.25 GoS willingness to discuss these issues 

and entertain genuine devolution might indicate the government’s likely response to similar 

demands from other conflict areas in Sudan; most notably in Darfur where the ongoing 

turmoil and violence has already led to calls for greater self-rule. Will Khartoum view reform 

as a means of resolving conflicts between the central government and the states? Or, having possibly endured southern secession, will it view devolution as a prelude to even more 

disintegration?

If popular consultation tests Khartoum’s willingness to share greater wealth and power 

with the two states, Sudan’s INC is the vehicle for a similar national discussion. The INC, the 

supreme law in Sudan, remains in effect until “a permanent constitution is adopted” after 

the interim period of the CPA.26 There is already pressure inside and outside Khartoum for 

a postreferendum constitutional review.27 There is also an existing institution mandated 

to review the constitution—the National Constitutional Review Commission.28 Popular 

consultation is, therefore, much more than an exercise between two states and the central government. It is the first opportunity to identify, examine, and negotiate post-2011 

governance structures for Sudan, which, in the event of southern secession, might then be 

expanded to apply to the entire north through a constitutional review—or, if the south 

chooses unity, to all Sudan. As special representative of the secretary-general in Sudan and 

head of the United Nations mission in Sudan, Haile Menkerios recently remarked: “If there 

is proper understanding reached . . . where the two communities could live not in one state 

and two systems, which is not going to be possible, but one state and one system, then that 

could be an example that could point to the future of Sudan.”29

Popular consultation is also a model for how Sudan might conduct any future constitutional review. Direct public participation is increasingly becoming a bedrock principle in 

constitution making, as it increases the likelihood that the resulting document more closely 

reflects popular will and increases the constitution’s legitimacy, credibility, and public support. Additionally, participatory processes can create a sense of shared national identity, 

build consensus, reconcile existing communal tensions, and produce a more informed and 

civic-minded public.30 The process state officials currently envision includes robust civic 

education and public awareness campaigns, followed by direct public consultations. This 

type of participation has been completely unknown in Sudan, as political elites negotiated, 

drafted, and ratified the CPA, INC, and all of Sudan’s state constitutions. Popular consultation could raise the bar for future reform in Sudan and set a new standard of democratic 

participation and governance.

Renewed Instability and Violence

Even as popular consultation could transform Sudanese politics and lead to a more stable 

and nationally accepted system of governance, a flawed or failed process could reignite 

violence in the two states and possibly spread to other parts of Sudan. As the geographic 

Direct public participation is 

increasingly becoming a bedrock 

principle in constitution making, 

as it increases the likelihood 

that the resulting document 

more closely reflects popular 

will and increases the 

constitution’s legitimacy, 

credibility, and public support.
 7

divide between northern and southern Sudan and the front line during the civil war, Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile were themselves divided, with Southern Kordofan in particular 

witnessing significant intrastate tension and violence. Bad faith or mismanagement of 

the consultation process carries the risk of renewed violence and instability. Worse still, a 

process that state leaders or groups perceive as illegitimate or unjust is likely to destabilize 

the entire border area of north and south Sudan, jeopardizing a peaceful southern secession 

and transition.31

In 2006, a series of focus groups conducted by the National Democratic Institute found 

massive dissatisfaction with the CPA among black African populations in Southern Kordofan 

and Blue Nile:

Frustration is high among Funj, Uduk, and Nuba populations of Blue Nile and 

Southern Kordofan states that one of the primary causes of the conflict—disparity 

in development—has not been addressed by the implementation of the CPA. . . . A 

peace without the realization of the dividends people believe are owed to them in 

the CPA is simply not an acceptable one for most. . . . [P]articipants have lost faith 

in the agreement as a solution for lasting peace. In assessing their current situation, 

therefore, most Funj, Uduk, and Nuba participants indicate their states are close to a 

return to conflict.32

Four years later, “implementation [of the CPA] is slow and no significant tangible realities 

recognize[d].”33 Civil society as well as SPLM and NCP senior officials in both states agree 

that a popular consultation process that does not result in meaningful return (devolution 

of power and wealth to the states) could lead to renewed violence, either from the discontented population at large or the substantial number of mobilized SPLA forces composed of 

residents of the two states.34 Exact figures are unknown, but it is generally believed that 

there are about 10,000 SPLA forces in Blue Nile and 18,000 to 30,000 Nuba SPLA soldiers in 

Southern Kordofan and the south.35 Many are already aggrieved over what they view as an 

SPLM betrayal in signing an agreement in 2005 that did not include self-determination for 

the two states. With secession and independence off the table, popular consultation needs 

to result in meaningful improvements if it is to appease these groups.36 Southern Sudan 

President Salva Kiir recently remarked that Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile “can become 

an area of instability . . . if their grievances are not addressed.”37 SRSG Menkerios recently 

echoed this fear when he stated, “if [popular consultation is] not properly addressed then 

one could expect the same conditions as led to north-south conflict could be recreated in 

those states as well.”38

SPLA forces are not the only armed groups that popular consultation must manage 

and mollify. By redrawing state boundaries and subsuming the former Western Kordofan, 

where the Misseriya were the majority, into Southern Kordofan, the CPA inflamed tensions 

between the Misseriya and the Nuba, who now compete for power, status, and land. Armed 

groups from both sides have engaged in acts of violence and tensions are high in Lagawa 

and other parts of the state (and in Abyei, where there is tension between the Misseriya 

and the Ngok Dinka).39 Misseriya in Abyei recently threatened violence and war if they are 

excluded from voting in the Abyei referendum to join the south or remain with the north.40

Popular consultation, if poorly managed, could escalate conflict and violence in Southern 

Kordofan as well.

How the International Community Can Help

The international community can affect whether popular consultation is remembered as 

contributing to violence and instability or helping redefine governance structures and 

political interests in post-2011 Sudan. 

Civil society . . . in both 

states agree that a popular 

consultation process that does 

not result in meaningful return 

could lead to renewed violence, 

either from the discontented 

population at large or the 

substantial number of mobilized 

SPLA forces composed of 

residents of the two states.
8 

Coordinated Financial Assistance

The Popular Consultation Law charges the state governments with funding the consultations, but permits assistance from other sources, including international donors. The cost of 

raising a secretariat, educating the public, conducting the consultations, and analyzing and 

reporting the data collected will be far beyond the financial capacity of the states, which 

rely on disbursements from the central government. For example, local NGOs, through grants 

by international donors, have been conducting civic education and awareness. International 

donors will need to continue to financially support the process during the consultation 

phase and beyond. During this time, coordination and communication between the donors 

will be critical to ensuring all locales and interests in the states are heard and that the 

process unfolds in a transparent and inclusive manner.

Monitoring and Reporting

Given the importance of popular consultation the international community might consider monitoring the process to help ensure that it occurs transparently, inclusively, and 

democratically, and that all people have a genuine opportunity to express their will. As an 

international presence at all times in both states is impractical, random monitoring might 

be sufficient. International monitors could also document and report any misconduct or 

impropriety so that all sides are confident that the process occurred consistent with the 

CPA and legislative mandate. The United Nations Missions in Sudan (UNMIS) played a similar 

role before and during the 2010 national elections, and could be well suited to do the same 

for popular consultation. The Assessment and Evaluation Commission, a CPA-created entity 

comprised of international advisers who assess the CPA’s implementation, could also fill this 

role. Any international mandate, however, should come from Sudanese officials.

Promote a Peaceful and Stabilizing Process

Expectations are high in both states that popular consultation will result in meaningful 

change. However, there are vastly different views as to what that change might entail. Many 

people in Southern Kordofan and southern Blue Nile still believe (and advocate) that popular 

consultation includes an option for secession with the south or outright independence.41

While certain peoples, particularly the Misseriya in Southern Kordofan, feel threatened 

by even a more modest consultation, they are concerned that the process might result in 

discrimination or marginalization of their community. Popular consultation can help bring 

together and promote reconciliation among the disparate communities or further inflame 

tensions. The international community can help in this regard by, first, encouraging the 

states to remain committed to their pledge to conduct an inclusive and transparent process 

and, second, helping manage the expectations of the leaders and people of the two states 

by remaining at all times on message as to what popular consultation is—and is not. Finally, 

the international community should work to raise support for and confidence in the popular 

consultation process among key constituencies within the states, and employ every means 

at its disposal to increase the likelihood that popular consultation results in meaningful 

improvement in the governance and development of the two states. 

Engage with Khartoum and Juba

Popular consultation does not have to contravene Khartoum’s interests. To the extent that 

long-term stability in Sudan requires a more balanced center-periphery relationship, negotiating a fair and mutually beneficial arrangement may serve GoS interests. And yet the recent 

move to call former Blue Nile governor candidate Farah Agar (NCP), who was at the time 
 9

working with Governor Malik Agar to raise public awareness for popular consultation, back 

to Khartoum might be construed as an indication that GoS is weary of the direction popular 

consultation is headed. The international community would be well-served by a better sense 

of Khartoum’s willingness to engage with the states and accept alternative structures, or 

any red lines that may exist. Greater engagement with the senior leadership in Khartoum 

and Juba could help the international community better understand how the two parties 

view the process and how much political space and capital they are prepared to devote to 

it. Engagement would also help reveal common ground and possible areas of compromise in 

advance of the negotiations, making the negotiations more likely to succeed. At the very 

least, the international community should liaise with Khartoum and Juba about popular 

consultation so senior officials are not caught off guard by developments in the states.

Be Prepared for Procedural Challenges

The popular consultation law has noticeable gaps and ambiguities that could create legal 

and political challenges as the process unfolds. The international community should be prepared to support the parties to identify creative work-arounds should any of the following 

issues unfold:

•	 How the Popular Consultation Commission or state assembly receive, interpret, and act on 

input from the people. Neither the CPA nor the popular consultation law provides any guidance as to how the assemblies should act on information received through the consultations. This could be a trigger point between various state interests, as different political, 

ethnic, and religious constituencies will likely have competing views as to the final position the state should take—that is, what shortcomings, if any, exist in the CPA and what 

remedies the state should seek to negotiate with the central government. The international 

community should encourage and promote a transparent process that reflects the will of 

the people by insisting that inputs from the consultations be made publicly available; that, 

to the extent practicable, the state assemblies engage in open deliberations; and that the 

state assemblies make every effort to reach decisions through consensus.

•	 How the states choose their negotiators. This is another ambiguity in the law and an area 

where certain groups could be left out or marginalized, contributing to instability and tension. The international community should promote as inclusive a process as possible.

•	 How to increase the likelihood of an agreement that satisfies all parties. There are conflict 

resolution mechanisms—mediation and arbitration—built into the law for Sudan to reap 

the maximum benefit from popular consultation; these should be used to create a final 

agreement that all sides accept. Such an agreement is also more likely to be implemented. 

The international community should encourage all sides to negotiate reasonably and in 

good faith and use whatever soft power is at its disposal to help the parties reach a durable 

and mutually satisfactory agreement.

•	 How to help broker an agreement on an arbiter, if needed. Which entity would arbitrate 

disagreements between the states and the GoS was the most contested issue during the 

negotiations over the popular consultation law. SPLM officials demanded an international 

arbiter in the vein of the Abyei border dispute while NCP officials demanded a Sudanese 

arbitrator. The parties punted the issue down the road by agreeing to an arbitration 

conducted by an “agreed upon body.” The international community, particularly regional 

actors, should be prepared to engage in creative and quiet diplomacy should the need for 

an arbiter arise.

The international community 

should encourage all sides to 

negotiate reasonably and in 

good faith and use whatever 

soft power is at its disposal to 

help the parties reach a durable 

and mutually satisfactory 

agreement.

Greater engagement with the 

senior leadership in Khartoum 

and Juba could help the 

international community better 

understand how the two parties 

view the process and how much 

political space and capital they 

are prepared to devote to it. 
10 

Conclusion

Popular consultation is a unique opportunity not just for Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, 

but for all of Sudan. It is a significant step toward Sudan’s democratization, the first time 

its people will have a forum not just to elect representatives but actually articulate their 

own needs, aspirations, and priorities for the state. If successful, popular consultation could 

not only repair relations among communities within the states themselves, but also realign 

political interests and foster meaningful constitutional change. If mismanaged or frustrated, 

the border region could be plunged back into war. The process—still an afterthought to 

most Sudanese and internationals preoccupied with the southern referendum—thus could 

hold the key to sustainable peace and security in post-CPA Sudan. 

Notes

1. “Protocol between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement on the Resolution of 

Conflict in Southern Kordofan/Nuba Mountains and the Blue Nile States,” May 26, 2004, Comprehensive Peace 

Agreement between the GoS and SPLM/SPLA, 74, pt. 3.6.

2. Prepared statement by the Sudanese Advocacy Network to 111th U.S. Congress, 2nd session, March 12–14, 

2010, 3.

3. International Organization for Migration, State Report Southern Kordofan: Village Assessments and Returnee 

Monitoring (Geneva: International Organization for Migration, 2009), http://www.iom.int/jahia/webdav/shared/

shared/mainsite/activities/countries/docs/village_assessment_southernkordofan.pdf (accessed July 18, 2010); 

UN High Commissioner for Refugees, “Sudan: Return of IDPs in Blue Nile State Gathers Pace,” Briefing Notes, 

February 13, 2007, http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/newsitem?id=45d198d832 (accessed July 18, 2010). 

Millard Burr, Quantifying Genocide in Southern Sudan and the Nuba Mountains, U.S. Committee for Refugees Issue 

Paper (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Committee for Refugees, 1999). 

4. International Crisis Group, Sudan’s Southern Kordofan: The Next Darfur? Africa Report no. 145 (Khartoum, Nairobi, 

and Brussels: International Crisis Group, 2008).

5. Abyei is more ethnically linked with southerners and is at least partially south of the 1956 border. See Tracy D. 

Cook, Lost in the Middle of Peace: An Exploration of Citizen Opinion on the Implementation of the CPA in the 

Three Areas of Abyei, Southern Kordofan, and Blue Nile (Washington, D.C.: National Democratic Institute, 2007), 

10 and 14.

6. Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between the GoS and SPLM/SPLA, 74, pts. 3.1 and 3.2.

7. “Protocol on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Two States of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile,” 74, pt. 3.1–3.3.

8. The Council of States is the second chamber of Sudan’s legislature. It is comprised of two representatives from 

each state and heavily dominated by the NCP.

9. The vagueness of the arbitration clause underscores the difficulty the SPLM and NCP had in reaching agreement 

on this provision, with the SPLM calling for an international arbiter in the vein of the Abyei border dispute and 

the NCP demanding a domestic arbiter. 

10. The Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile Popular Consultation Organisation Act, Sudanese National Assembly, 

December 30, 2009, pt. 15.2.k.

11. State officials and the GoS agreed to delay elections in Southern Kordofan so that alleged defects in the 

state census and voter registration could be remedied. The elections are likely to take place in November or 

December 2010.

12. “Protocol on the Resolution of the Conflict,” 74, pt. 3.5.

13. Comprehensive Peace Agreement, xi.

14. Sudan Interim National Constitution of the Republic of Sudan, art. 225.

15. See, e.g., CPA chapter 2, arts. 2.3.5 (the national executive) and 11.1.1 (the national assembly); and chapter 3, 

arts. 5.6 (revenue from southern producing wells) and 8.3 (seats on the Fiscal and Financial Allocation and 

Monitoring Commission); and chapter 4, art. 3.1 (revenue from Abyei producing wells).

16. Other political parties in Sudan include the Popular Congress Party, Democratic Unionist Party, Umma Party, Umma 

Reform and Renewal Party, Sudanese National Alliance, Sudanese Socialist Democratic Union, the Communist 

Party, and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement for Democratic Change.

17. See speech by Governor Malik Agar, March 13, 2010: “Popular consultation is to solve social and economic 

problems. . . . It represents self-rule versus federal rule. It calls for decentralization for Blue Nile State;” see also 

speech by NCP Chairman for Blue Nile State Farah Agar, March 13, 2010: “We must discuss the relations between 

the center and state in terms of wealth sharing and how to achieve a fair distribution of powers and wealth.”

18. See speech by Malik Agar: “Popular consultation is between Blue Nile and Khartoum. All people here are meant 

to participate. Keep this in mind. Popular consultation is not for the NCP or the SPLM, but for Blue Nile State.... 

The people are to decide the issues to solve through popular consultation. The parties are to make people aware 

of popular consultation.”; see also speech by Farah Agar: “Popular consultation is not for any one party. It is 

owned by all of the people of Blue Nile, for them to state their aspirations. Popular consultation is not against 

anyone. The decisions are the people’s, whether positive or negative.”

19. Prepared statement by the Sudanese Advocacy Network to 111th U.S. Congress: “Elections in Southern Kordofan 

state have special importance; they are associated with popular consultation, and thus the demand for 

development, services, power and wealth sharing and distribution.” See also Sudanese Church Position Paper 

“Choose Life: A Vision for a Peaceful Sudan,” May 5, 2010, cpn.nd.edu/assets/25352/choose_life_scc_position_

paper.pdf (accessed July 27, 2010): “The contested results of the census led to the postponement of the most 

important election in Southern Kordofan which is the key in the process of popular consultation.”
 11

20. Author’s interview with senior NCP official from Southern Kordofan, May 24, 2010.

21. Interview with NCP official from Southern Kordofan, May 24, 2010.

22. Unfortunately, Farah Agar has since been called to Khartoum and given the position of director general in the 

Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs—perhaps underscoring the tension between NCP officials in the state and the 

leaders in Khartoum. 

23. Author’s interview with senior NCP official from Blue Nile, May 25, 2010.

24. “Self-determination Emerging as an Option for Darfur: JEM,” Sudan Tribune, August 4, 2010, http://www.

sudantribune.com/spip.php?article35853. “The People of Nuba and Darfur Demand Self-determination,” Sudan 

Tribune, August 15, 2010 http:sudantribune.com/spiphp?article35952

25. Power and wealth sharing, land, security, and cultural and religious freedom were the five issues examined at the 

popular consultation workshop held in Damazin, Blue Nile, May 23–25, 2010.

26. Interim National Constitution, art. 226.9.

27. Sudanese officials within the GoS acknowledge the need for constitutional revisions should the south vote for 

secession, at the very least to clean up ambiguities that result from the secession and to reflect the new nature 

of the state.

28. ”Without predjudice to the provisions of the Peace Agreement, as a subsequent task and during the course of 

the six year Interim Period, the National Constitutional Review Commission shall be responsible for organizing 

an inclusive Constitutional Review Process. The process must provide for political inclusiveness and public 

participation.” CPA 12.10.

29. Speech by SRSG Menkerios at Woodrow Wilson Center, June 16, 2010, Washington, D.C.

30. Laurel E. Miller, “Designing Constitution-Making Processes: Lessons from the Past, Questions for the Future,” in 

Framing the State in Times of Transition: Case Studies in Constitution Making, ed. Laurel E. Miller (Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Institute of Peace Press, 2010), 627–38.

31. “[F]ailure to address the aspirations of the people of Abyei, the Nuba Mountains, or Blue Nile could lead to unrest 

and eventually armed insurgency in those areas. This would almost certainly spread to other areas—Darfur, the 

south and even the eastern front. . . . One could envisage a scenario where the south secedes peacefully, but is 

drawn back into full scale civil war by an outbreak of conflict in the transitional areas.” CPA Alert: The State of 

Sudan’s Comprehensive Peace Agreement, IKV Pax Christie, 11, September 2010.

32. Cook, Lost in the Middle, 10 and 14.

33. Prepared statement by the Sudanese Advocacy Network to 111th Congress, 7.

34. See, e.g., Sudanese Church, “Choose Life,” 3: “The Church fears that failure to address the aspirations of the 

people of these two states could derail any peaceful post-2011 transition.” 

35. See, e.g., International Crisis Group, “The Drift Back to War: Insecurity and Militarization in the Nuba Mountains,” 

Small Arms Survey no. 12 (August 2008), and author’s interviews with SPLM officials and international 

observers.

36. “Nuba Warns Kiir over Possible SPLM Disintegration,” Sudan Tribune, March 28, 2010, http://www.thefreelibrary.

com/Nuba+warns+Kiir+over+possible+SPLM+disintegration.-a0222379515 (accessed July 18, 2010). “The People 

of Nuba and Darfur Demand Self-determination,” Sudan Tribune, August 15, 2010, http:sudantribune.com/

spiphp?article35952

37. Speech by South Sudan President Salva Kiir at the United States Institute of Peace, September 20, 2010. 

38. Speech by SRSG Menkerios. Bracketed material due to the quality of the recording.

39. See U.N. Security Council, Report of the Secretary General on the Sudan (S/2009/61), January 30, 2009, para. 

21: “The abundance of arms, local dissatisfaction with the lack of a peace dividend, and fluid tribal and political 

affiliations make [Southern Kordofan] prone to conflict.” See also Nanne op ’t Ende, “Fighting in Lagawa Country 

Yet to Be Contained,” October 5, 2007, http://www.occasionalwitness.com/Articles/20071005.html (accessed 

July 18, 2010).

40. “Central Sudan Tribe Warns of War if No Referendum Vote,” Reuters Africa, September 30, 2010, http://af.reuters.

com/article/topNews/idAFJOE68T01Y20100930?sp=true.

41. “The People of Nuba and Darfur Demand Self-determination,” Sudan Tribune, August 15, 2010, http:sudantribune.

com/spiphp?article35952
Not for circulation

United States 

Institute of Peace

1200 17th Street NW

Washington, DC 20036

www.usip.org

An online edition of this and related 

reports can be found on our Web site 

(www.usip.org), together with additional 

information on the subject.

Of Related Interest

•	 Civic Education and Peacebuilding: Examples from Iraq and Sudan by Daniel H. Levine and 

Linda S. Bishai (Special Report, October 2010)

•	 Local Justice in Southern Sudan by Cherry Leonardi, Leben Moro, Martina Santschi, and 

Deborah Isser (Peaceworks, October 2010)

•	 Scenarios for Sudan’s Future, Revisited by Jon Temin and Jaïr van der Lijn (Peace Brief, 

August 2010)

•	 Improving Natural Resource Management in Sudan by Paul Sullivan and Natalie Nasrallah 

(Special Report, June 2010)

•	 Negotiating Sudan’s Post-Referendum Arrangements by Jon Temin (Peace Brief, January 

2010)

•	 Scenarios for Sudan: Avoiding Political Violence through 2011 by Alan Schwartz (Special 

Report, August 2009)