Filed under: News, Politics, Race and Civil Rights
In our sometimes romanticized historic view of ancient Africa, we can find lands of gold, of regal societies that traded the finest wares on caravans that stretched through the continent and brave warriors defending the southern Nile valleys against attackers from the Mediterranean and Asia Minor.
A little more study brings us to the kingdoms of antiquity like Nubia and Kush, and we wonder how they went from among the most powerful in the world to a state fighting to maintain a centralized government in a few thousand years.
At this point, the world watches to see if Sudan can bring democracy to themselves, even if it means splitting the nation to do it.
Millions of Sudanese are making the decision to walk away from the decades of civil war, poverty and disease that has come to define life for so many in the nation.
Voting results could mean that the southern part of the country could secede from the north. The vote is the result of a 2005 peace agreement brokered by the Bush Administration.
If the country splits, the North, run by Omar al-Bashir, accused by many of being the brutal dictator behind the genocide in Darfur, would lose its access to the oil-rich South.
Bashir says he will respect the outcome of the vote, but many do not trust him to do so. There is a chance that militants may reject the referendum and try to hold on to the breakoff land.
Despite that, this is an exercise whose time has come.
Sudan is where civilization's history began, but war between Arabs and black Africans over the course of centuries has reduced it to a wasteland of destitution.
Despite its natural wealth and beauty, the life expectancy there is about 54 years old. People typically die of preventable diseases, such as typhoid and malaria, and most live on about $1.25 a day. This dim existence is likely to go on if voters are unsuccessful in seceding from the North.
But if they do win, it means an end to all that, but it also means more.
It can serve as an example that an African nation can develop in embryo into its own self-sufficient, independent state without the nation-building meddling of western powers whose only interests are profitability from Sudan's natural resources.
Economist Dambisa Moyo, author of "Dead Aid," has explained that African nations are served by charity largely to their detriment. With money constantly given to them by people who think they are being benevolent, they become dependent and never figure out how to foster their own economies. Without taking the risk of democracy, Sudan will never have the chance to steer from this situation.
This is not to say they can't use help from the West.
Former President Jimmy Carter's work there has been monumental in helping to bring an understanding that peace is actually better than war, and although celebrities rarely seem to change the overall well-being of an impoverished nation, actor George Clooney has brought more attention to the conflict in Darfur than even the United Nations.
But the help Sudan needs is help in helping themselves.
Thankfully, this is what they have decided to do, and if they are successful, their example will be a powerful one for the rest of Africa.