| Summary: | The primary objective of this study is to identify the Sudanese socio-political structure at independence. This has necessitated an examination of very early forms of the development of this structure to find the roots of more recent developments. Implied in this is the central idea that the above development is an ongoing process and that what seems interruptions under technico-environmental constraints are conditions of the local-historic nature of society. In the light of this hypothesis it is possible to draw a taxonomy consistent with the forms of mode to modes of production as successor events asserted by a form of state whose roots lay in the economic, the political and the ideological spheres. This form of development is at once analogous to and anamolous with African/Mediterranean types. Starting with Nubia, which is believed to have incubated the origins of this development, in turn branching from the pre-dynastic Horizon Groups, the Funj, the Mahdia, and even the Condominium could be comparable. Certain similarities, especially in the state, the ideological or cult manifestations and most importantly the property relationships, are possible to draw. The Kushite pharaoh, like the Iamite and Wawaite chiefs of the eastern desert rudimentary states, the band leaders on the rivers of the pre-dynastic period up to the Sultan of Sennar, the Khalifa, all were the sole owners of the soil, the chief merchant, organiser, financier and sole monopolists of long distance trade. They all were 'charismatic' and exchanged possession of land for tribute as they conscripted slaves in the state army and kept splendid courts. Ideololgy and the arm cemented the state's vertical role in the economy. The Turkia and the Condominium stepped into the role of the traditional state and extracted surplus labour or production in the form of tribute, while land remained even in the 19th. and the 20th. centuries unsaleable and tribute continued to be the condition of 'ownership' in the land. The Condominium was in charge of the long distance trade and great public works to be seen in the 'modern sector' of agriculture. Both the Condominium and the Turkia, like predecessor traditional states deployed surrogate agents on the local level and recreated the neo satraps who shared in power and surplus production extraction. The former 'feudal areas' of the earlier times became under colonialism planned devolutions. The dynastic families regained their royal positions under the auspices of the central state. The Condominium, however, introduced cash crop production and valorisation processes set in as production became commodity production linked to the world market. Peripheralization of the Sudan's economy meant that the Sudan stopped being a self-sufficient unit, while the capitalist sector was not entrenched enough to produce more than distorted forms of merchant capital based as before on the traditional institution of the Sheil; the usurer's capital. Theoretical tools for the analysis of the sudanese reality were probed among which were the class model, the Elite/mass dichotomy, the non-capitalist development theory and the Asiatic or Oriental Mode of Production. Among the conclusions reached are: <i>(a)</i> development of the above structure pronounced a cyclical pattern. The rise of the central state and the consequent devolution of power to the local power centres manifested the recurring centripetal/centrifugal migrations. Careful definition of these migrations shows that centrifugal migrations are not necessarily concommittent with the rise of the paramount central state; the evolutionary cycle. <i>(b)</i> The impact of the vastness, the arid and semi-arid environmental constraints produce pressure on the system much as increased demand on tribute by the tribute collecting groups does, at the inception of the devolutionary cycle. <i>(c)</i> The central continuity mechanism behind the successive pattern of the state, is the existence of an internal dynamic within the state formation of certain individuals who are trained in and entrusted with sustaining the state; these are the royal hostages, the military slaves, the Arabs, the Bazinja and the detribalised Sudanese; they are mobile, capable of self manumism and liberated from the apathy of the self-sufficient village or dar members. They are king-makers, control the state from behind the scene and usurp the state as a godly act of cementing what nature has prescribed.
|
|---|
