The Tool of Identity
The role of identity in violent conflicts and as a tool for armed groups
(Human Rights Watch 2005)
Student : Jan-Willem van Dijk
Student number : 10823883
Course : Master Thesis Political Science
Specialization : Armed Groups and Violent Conflicts
Supervisors : Ram Manikkalingam
Fleur Ravensbergen
Second reader : Lee Seymour
Date & Place : Amsterdam, 26 June 2015
Word Count : 19.509 words
I. Abstract
This thesis will explain the role of identities within a violent conflict, how armed groups use it as a tool to mobilize fighters and how identity is used to gain support locally and on an international scale. With the help of different theories, this thesis will explain how identities become important in a society, how identities become hostile towards one another and how political elites use symbols and myths that are linked to a specific identity to associate themselves with a that identity to gain loyalty and support from a specific identity group. After that the role of identity in a violent conflict will be shown in practice when this thesis analyses the role of identity within the two civil wars that took place in Sudan after the country became independent in 1955. (Kaufman 2008: 208). The development of the two prominent identities in Sudanese society, the Arab-Islamic northern identity and the African-Christian or Animist southern identity will be discussed. Also the transformation of these identities from a social group identity into a salient politicized identity will be explained. Furthermore, the use of different identities by Sudanese armed groups to organize a rebellion will be described.
II. Table of Contents
I. Abstract ... 2
II. Table of Contents ... 3
III. Map of Sudan & South Sudan ... 5
IV. List of abbreviations ... 6
1. Introduction ... 7
2. Armed groups & mobilization of individuals... 9
3. Social identities ... 12
3.1 Identity & mobilization ... 12
3.2 New Wars ... 14
3.2.1 Ethnic identity ... 16
3.2.2 Religious identity ... 16
4. Theoretical Framework ... 18
4.1 Social identity theory ... 18
4.2 Societal security dilemma ... 21
4.3 Symbolic-Politics Theory ... 25
5. Methodology ... 28
6. Identities in Sudan; a historic perspective ... 30
6.1 Identities & armed groups in northern-Sudan ... 36
6.2 Identities & armed groups in southern-Sudan ... 38
6.2.1 Anya-Nya ... 39
6.2.2 Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army ... 40
6.3 Identities & armed groups in Darfur (western-Sudan) ... 43
6.3.1 Janjaweed ... 45
6.3.2 Justice and Equality Movement ... 48
6.3.3 Sudanese Liberation Movement/Army ... 48
6.4 External support; identities & armed groups ... 49
7. Analyses ... 52
8. Discussion ... 55 9. Conclusion ... 57 10. Bibliography ... 59
III. Map of Sudan & South Sudan
Map 1: Map of Sudan and South Sudan with areas of presence of different armed groups as of 2013 ( Leff & LeBrun 2014).
IV. List of abbreviations
DLA Darfur Liberation Army
EDF Equatoria Defense Forces
GoS Government of Sudan
JEM Justice and Equality Movement
SLM Sudan Liberation Movement
SLA Sudan Liberation Army
SLM/A Sudan Liberation Movement/Army
SPLM Sudan People’s Liberation Movement
SPLA Sudan People’s Liberation Army
SPLM/A Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army
SSIM South Sudan Independence Movement
1. Introduction
This chapter will provide the reader with a survey of what this thesis will entail. The research question will be stated, its relevance will be explained and applied theories will be
introduced. This preface starts with the introduction of the Sudan case that plays an important role in this thesis.
The drawing on the title page of this thesis was made by a child in a refugee camp in Darfur, Sudan. It shows the attack on a village by an armed group named Janjaweed. This militia group, sometimes also referred to as ‘devils on horseback’ , destroyed hundreds of villages in Darfur which resulted in many deaths and the fleeing of millions of people (Human Rights Watch 2005).
The two Civil Wars of Sudan ( 1955-1972 & 1983-2005) that started just before the country became independent in 1956, will play an important role in this thesis in order to show the influence of identity in a violent conflicts and the importance of identity for armed group. The Sudanese Civil Wars are a dreadful conflict, but are also relevant and helpful as a case to answer the following research question.; What is the role of identity in violent conflicts and what are the motivations for armed groups to organize or identify their
organization on one or multiple identities?
This research question is relevant because it is helpful to know how armed groups are created and what motivates individuals to organize their armed group in a specific manner. When one understands better how armed groups come about and why groups of people are motivated to fight, one can better understand a specific conflict and the actors in this conflict. Identity is also important because when it is mobilized and organized in the form of an armed group, it will reveal the dividing lines within an armed conflict itself, or in society as a whole. Furthermore I will express why armed groups and identity are relevant phenomenona in the contemporary world to focus on. One reasons is that since the end of the Cold War there is a steady increase in intra-state conflict and in today’s world most violent conflicts are not fought between states, but within a state between non-state actors, like armed groups. (Williams 2008).
I will give a short overview of the concept of New Wars by Kaldor (1999), which elaborates on the transformation of war since last century from an interstate conflict to a form of violent conflict wherein the politics of identity and non-state actors become increasingly important. After that I will shortly explain why certain concepts relevant for this research. To understand how armed groups come about, one needs to look at how they are organized and mobilized. Social identities and social groups are important factors. Armed groups do also need to possess numerous characteristics to be effective. These will also be discussed.
Next, I will argue why the theories I operate for this thesis are relevant. Theories like the symbolic politics theory (Kaufman 2001 & 2006) the societal security dilemma (Roe 2004) and the social identity theory (Tajfel 1981) explain how an identity can be used as a tool, what it’s role is in a conflict and why identities, when being threatened, become stronger and more salient in society.
When the relevant concepts and theories are explained and debated, I will link the theory with the real world. The focus hereby will be on the conflicts that raged within the former state of Sudan. This thesis will execute an in depth analyses of how identity played a role in the two Sudanese Civil Wars, which non-state actors played an important role and why different armed groups identified their organization with specific social identities.
This thesis will end with a discussion which stresses that not only identity played a role in the Sudanese Civil Wars and the mobilization of armed groups. Also the harmful effects of identity for armed groups will be shown. Finally some concluding remarks will be made that summarize this thesis and give an answer to the previously mentioned research question.
2. Armed groups & mobilization of individuals
This chapter will include the definition of armed groups, explain on what sort of armed group this thesis focusses on and the process of mobilization will be clarified.
A large number of today’s intra-state conflicts are related to identity. In intra-state wars non-state actors, like armed groups play an important role. It is important to first focus on what an armed group exactly is, how an armed organization mobilizes its fighters and what the
relationship is between political organizations and armed organizations (Williams 2008).
From reading the definitions of different scholars of what an armed group exactly is, one can conclude that there is little to no consensus on the definition of an armed group. It can be characterized as a non-state actor in a violent conflict with a degree of cohesiveness as an organization. This means that an armed group as an entity has a name, some sort of leadership and the ability to continue its violent actions (Sinno 2011; Schlichte 2009a). Other definitions include the ability of an organization to exercise control over a certain territory in order to execute military operations (Sinno 2011).
Despite of the lack of uniformity about the definition of armed groups there can be made a distinction between different categories of armed groups. There are several categories of armed groups. (Shultz et al. 2004; Schlichte 2009a). This thesis will primarily focus on two forms of armed groups. Namely insurgent groups and (pro government) militia’s.
An Insurgent groups can be described as an organization with political and military activities. These activities are directed towards gaining control over a territory. Political mobilization and guerrilla warfare are important aspects of these activities (Shultz et al. 2004: 17-18). A militias is described by Shultz et al (2004: 23) as a recognizable irregular armed force that is operating in the territory of a weak or failed state. Militias can be connected to the state at a direct or indirect level. Militias often represent ethnical, religious or tribal groups.
Now it is important to discuss the different characteristics an armed group needs to possess in order to be effective in a conflict. It is important for an armed group to have the ability to co-ordinate, mobilize and to manipulate information (Sinno 2011:312) Vinci (2006: 51)
describes that mobilization for armed groups for a large part depends on the willingness of individuals to take up arms and fight.
The mobilization of individuals for an armed group is often preceded by political
mobilization. Political mobilization can be caused by conflicts of certain interests. When a particular collective feels discriminated or marginalized because of an unjust distribution of resources or power, political mobilization becomes strong in a society. Social groups that share the same identity will mobilize politically to get their voice heard in order to address their grievances towards the state. When these groups feel unheard and don’t see any change in their situation, their actions will radicalize (Wood 2008: 543).
Political mobilization usually is organized and executed by local elites in order to obtain more control over people, territory and resources. Identity plays an important role for elites when they try to mobilize politically. Through political mobilization, elites can organize protests and strikes, but also more aggressive methods like violence against (political) opponents. Therefore elites will also politically mobilize when they feel unsecure and they want to be prepared for a conflict. (Wood 2008).
When political mobilization does not have the expected effects, a political organization can transform into an armed group. Military mobilization is a form of mobilization that is focused on the construction of a fighting force . Elites will provide arms to their social networks. They mobilize personnel from a social group that is linked to them through a similar identity, because chances are high that these individuals support the same agenda and goals of the elites of their social group and are also motivated to fight people that their social group and its elite see as an enemy. Simple said, elites use identity as a tool to mobilize people. This phenomenon will be discussed in chapter six when the symbolic politics theory will be explained (Wood 2008: 546).
Political and military mobilization are therefore close related to each other. When a part of society doesn’t feel heard by the state or has the feeling that their interests aren’t being taken care of, it is the first stage for these people to mobilize politically. When there is no success in the actions of a political organization, there can be more extreme actions which eventually transform a political organization into a military organization; an armed group (Schlichte 2009b).
Therefore it is not surprising that the leadership positions of an armed group are most of the time being filled in by former professional oppositionists, who have felt the repression of the government personally, for example through detention by the state (Schlichte 2009b: 249). The leadership of an armed group is vital for its effectiveness, because it identifies the goals and objectives of the armed organization.
The same can be said about the staff members of armed groups. Most of these individuals have been a member of an political opposition group and at one point were active in executing violent political actions. . Also, in a lot of cases members of an armed group already know their fellow compatriots through earlier experiences in a political party or organization. (Schlichte 2009b: 250).
3. Social identities
The previous chapter described how political and military organizations are mobilized and mentioned that identity plays an important role in mobilization. Therefore this chapter will discuss the concept of identity. In this chapter the term identity will be defined and thereafter it’s relation to armed groups will be explained. After that, specific social identities like an ethnic and religious identity will be described. These two identities are important because they will play an important role later on in this thesis. Also the relevance of identity in today’s armed conflicts will be discussed.
3.1 Identity & mobilization
The reasons for people to join an armed group are various. Off course it is an important capability for an armed group to be able to recruit members of society to fight and support the cause of a particular group.
Identity has always played an important role in armed conflicts. Since history military operations were given religious or cultural justifications in order to mobilize and motivate fighting personal. Examples of this are the Christian crusades in the Middle East, or
colonialism which was motivated or justified by the church. (Gartzke & Gleditsch 2006: 55). More recent examples of the lethal effects of identity can be seen in intra-state conflicts during the nineties of the last century. These so called identity wars like the Yugoslav Wars and the Rwandan Civil War were primarily fought between armed groups that were identified and mobilized on the basis of ethnicity or religion. In Yugoslavia violent groups identified themselves with their Croatian, or Serbian background and religiously as Muslims or Orthodox Christians. The atrocities that took place in Rwanda were executed along ethnic lines. Ethnic differences between Hutu and Tutsi people became an important aspect of the Rwandan Civil War and resulted in an enormous number of deaths. (Kaufman, 2008; 209, Staiculescu & Stan 2012: 779-782).
As one can read from the short examples above, identity plays a vital role in how individuals and groups see themselves and others in a conflict and it has the ability to mobilize
individuals and collectives for a specific cause. 12
The concept of identity is rather broad. According to Jenkins (2014), identity at a basic level can be described as the capacity of individuals or groups to know who they are, knowing who others are and how others think of us or how we think they see us. Identity is about
categorizing others and thereby associating ore differentiating oneself with those others. This process of identification or classification creates relationships, because an identity can cause friendly or hostile relations or contacts (Jenkins 2014: 5-6).
Stuart Hall (1996: 4-5) sees identity not as a process of association because of similarities between individuals, but rather as a process of exclusion. Identification creates boundaries between people, it is a product of the marking of differences. Identification causes the construction of an ‘us’ against ‘them’ feeling.
Collectivity can be explained as a plurality of people who see themselves as similar, but collectivity can also be described as a group of individuals with the same behavior or circumstances (Jenkins 2014: 104). A group identity can be described as a set of shared values and characteristics of its members which causes a form of uniformity among the members of that group. Individuals who identify themselves with a particular group will adopt its perceptions. This so called social identification can, because of a groups solidarity, create strong emotions against other identities (Staiculescu & Stan, 2012).
Bush & Keyman (1997: 316-317) see group identity as a concept that is not primordial nor pure instrumental, but rather as something in between those explanations. They describe that a of group identity is contingent and contextual, but has a limited range. This makes a group identity partly primordial because there are certain boundaries to the degree wherein a group identity can change.
A group identity is contingent because members of one group define themselves along different identities. Different conditions and traits influence members on what they see as their primary identity. There are various axes where a group can base their identity on. For example, individuals can organize themselves along identities that are based on class, language, religion, ethnicity or political party preferences. The specific identity of a group is a result of different factors like societal processes and the activities of mobilizers (Bush & Keyman 1997: 317).
Identity mobilization can be seen as a process whereby specific axes of identity become politically salient. This process causes boundaries between groups to change or makes boundaries more significant (Bush & Keyman 1997: 317).
According to the social identity theory, relations within a group will focus on the similarities of its members. At the other hand differences between members an non-group members will be emphasized by the group, or even execrated. This can result in discrimination against outsiders. (Jenkins 2014: 112). The social identity theory will be later discussed in chapter four.
Identity plays an important role in social conflict, because of its ability to create groups and collectivity. Identity has the capability to mobilize individuals. Its ability to discriminate and to construct images hostility can be an inducement for social conflict. At the other hand, conflict itself can be a source of the creation of identity (Cook-Huffman 2009: 19). Through social comparison individuals will observe the characteristics of armed groups. When they classify their own identity similar to the identity of the armed group they will be seen as a member of that particular group. At the other hand, individuals with a different identity than that of the armed group will be seen as outsiders or through the use of symbols and myths as hostile or dangerous persons (Staiculescu & Stan 2012).
3.2 New Wars
To demonstrate the relevance of identity within a conflict these days it is helpful to elaborate on the ‘New Wars’ concept of Kaldor (2006). This concept explains how warfare changed over time from an armed conflict between two or more sovereign states into violent conflicts with an important role for non-state actors, political ideology and mobilization on the basis of identity. The political goals of these new wars are structured around the claim to power by a social group, based on a specific identity (Williams 2008).
In New Wars identity groups, that are for example based on ethnicity or religion, try to take power from or over other groups or the state. This new sort of conflict over power is often the result of political elites who try to mobilize a specific identity group that suffered from
discrimination of marginalization. Especially when identity groups see that other groups are treated better by the government then their own group, a feeling of dissatisfaction can
radicalize into hostile sentiments against the government or other identity groups (Williams 2008).
Sambanis (2001) also states that identity is a relevant concept when explaining violent conflicts. He distinguishes two different sorts of civil wars. Identity wars and non-identity wars. Identity wars are conflicts that are fought on the basis of a specific identity like ethnicity or religion.
He further explains how identities cause hostile feelings between actors who are present in a violent conflict. An identity can be linked to old historic sources of enmity or memories about atrocities. These so called ancient hatreds cause identities to be seen as hostile. Also cultural gaps can cause hostilities between different identity groups. Differences in in culture can create misunderstanding, but also fear (Sambanis 2001).
Sambanis (2001) also describes that when different identity groups or societies share the same territory, feelings of vulnerability can arise. When identity groups or societies feel vulnerable or threatened a societal security dilemma can originate. The societal security dilemma will be discussed later on in this thesis. (Sambanis 2001).
Bush and Keyman (1997: 315) recognize the important role of identity in violent conflicts too. They say that identity does not mobilize individuals, but individuals mobilize identity. From a set of possible identities, a mobilizer who is often part of a larger organization, chooses on or multiple identities based on social, economic and political circumstances. Because the description and the concept of identity is rather abstract, it is helpful to elaborate on some specific identities. The next paragraphs will discuss and explain ethnic and religious identity to give the reader a more practical view on what an identity is. Besides that, both ethnic and religious identities will play an important role later in this thesis when the Sudan case will be discussed.
3.2.1 Ethnic identity
Ethnicity is one of the most influential characteristics for group identity. Weber (1978) defines ethnicity as a feeling of unity or solidarity within a group of people. This feeling is based on shared culture or ancestors. An ethnic identity can also be based on shared history or a feeling of common consecutiveness towards a territory.
There is some debate about whether or not religion is an aspect of ethnicity. For example, Smith (1986) states that an ethnic identity takes form from an early age because of language and religion. Varshney (2003) brings forward two definitions of ethnicity. He describes ethnicity in the narrow sense as identification based on racial and linguistic characteristics. The broader definitions sees an ethnic identity as an identity that is shaped by race, language, religion and tribe.
In this thesis I will use Varshney’s (2003) narrow definition of ethnicity, when mentioning the concept of ethnicity. One cannot assume that a religious identity is subsumed under an ethnic identity. There are numerous cases were one’s religious identity is totally different from one’s ethnic identity and there might be even contradictions between the two. Although a distinction can be made between ethnic identity and religious identity, the two can be compatible. For example the conflicts in Sudan, that will be discussed in chapter six of this thesis, was between a group which identified themselves with the Arab identity where Islam is closely related to. The same situation was observed in Former Yugoslavia where Serbian ethnic identity was related to Christianity and Bosnians linked their ethnicity with Islam (Kaufman 2008).
3.2.2 Religious identity
A religious identity is based on religious beliefs. All religions are about describing what is right and what is wrong, and gives people meaning in life. It is about shared beliefs, values and norms. A particular religious identity is not a direct instigator of social conflict, but when religious believes become fundamental or politicalized, it can cause intolerance and
discrimination in society (Kunovich & Hodson 1999).
Furthermore, religious beliefs can evoke strong emotional feelings which makes it usable as a tool for interest groups or elites to mobilize their identity group in order to secure certain interests. (Kunovich & Hodson 1999).
Wellman & Tokuno (2004) state that the social boundaries that are created through religious identities have the ability to mobilize individual and group identities in a conflict. This can eventually lead to violence between different religious identity groups. Religion has the ability to shape identities of individuals and groups. It can be an inspiration for people to mobilize and organize themselves. Religion identities are not only a tool for mobilization, but also for motivation. Especially in religions where it is believed that combatants will be
religiously rewarded when they participate in violence to protect their religion or punish non-believers. Besides that, conflicts between different religious groups can strengthen one’s religious identity.
Frequently, religion is the primary cultural characteristic that separates groups in a conflict. Religion is important for an individual identity as well for a group identity because of its ability to stabilize these identities. The institutions and traditions of religions obstruct change of the social meaning of an individual or group. Second, religion can easily facilitate an individual with a new identity. It offers one the ability to assimilate to a new identity which is based on a particular religion. Thirdly, a religious group identity has an enormous scope. The major religions have a very strong group identity, like for example the Muslim Ummah or the Christian Body of Christ (Seul 1999).
Seul (1999) further states that religion is much closer to one’s core identity, than for example ethnicity because it is the only form of identity that addresses to almost all forms of human needs and fears in such a strong way as religion. Religion does not have to be the reason for conflict, but armed groups can base their group on a religious identity in order to obtain certain social or material interests.
4. Theoretical Framework
In the following chapters I will, with help of theories, explain why it is in the interest of an armed group to organize or identify its organization based on one or multiple identities. This chapter will start with a discussion of the social identity theory. This theory is important because it emphasizes why identities are important when researching armed groups. The social identity theory helps to explain intergroup relations by stressing the role of social identities and social categorization in group and inter-group processes.
The other relevant theories in this thesis are based on the international relations theories of Constructivism and Realism. These theories will help to explain why identities are vital for armed groups, mainly because an armed group’s identity is related to trust, support and motivation.
4.1 Social identity theory
The social identity theory was developed by Henri Tajfel (1981). This theory explains that members of a social group want to positively distinguish themselves from other social groups. When an individual becomes a member of a group, it wants its social group to be sociably favorable compared to other groups in society. This urge of individuals or groups to distinguish themselves from others can eventually lead to a situation of conflict within a society between two social groups (Hogg 2006: 112).
A social group is a group of people that share the same identity. This can be an ethnic identity or a religious identity, but also political ideology can create a social group. Being a member of a social group means that one evaluates and defines members of the group as similar to themselves, based on their social identity (Hogg 2006).
Another important aspect of being a member of a social group is that members share a common perception towards people who are not part of their social group. This means that members of a social group relate to members of other social group in the same way. (Hogg 2006)
A social group does not only categorizes itself, but also other social groups in a society. When a social group forms a perception about another social group it looks at the social characteristics of that group. The focus is thereby on what differentiates the other social group from the own social group. This process of categorization thereby has the ability to create an Us/Them dichotomy (Hogg 2006: 115-120)
An Us/Them dichotomy between social groups causes individuals to depersonalize all
individuals in society. This means that a member of a social group does not look at himself as an individual, but rather as a representative of his or her social group. Members of others social groups are also depersonalized in the way that they are seen not as an individual but more like a part of a social group that is linked to a specific set of characteristics. When the identity of a social group is perceived as highly negative or degrading, depersonalization can develop into dehumanization (Hogg 2006: 115-116).
This process of social identification is motivated by self-enhancement and the reduction of uncertainty. After an Us/Them dichotomy is established members of the group want their group to have more social status and prestige because their individual status is linked to the social group’s status. Characteristics of the one’s social identity are being praised and glorified. Whereas the identity of the other social group is being disgraced and degraded (Hogg 2006: 113)
Individuals try to reduce uncertainty about how they see society and how it sees them by becoming a member of a social group. Because of the Us/Them dichotomy it is more clear for a social group member to know who is friendly towards him and who is hostile. It predicts the behavior of others through the process of categorization (Hog 2006).
A simple and non-violent Us/Them perception within a society or between identity groups can deteriorate into a violent conflict where the perception of ally or enemy is based on identity ( Korostelina 2009: 101)
This process starts with the Us/Them perception. Even in peaceful times members of one group have negative perceptions towards people of other identity groups. These perceptions can be based on certain stereotypes, behavior or historic events. Even when there is no conflict within a society, people have the need to be included in a group and to exclude or dissociate themselves from other groups. They see their own identity group as something positive, whereas the ‘’other’’ groups are seen as negative (Korostelina 2009: 101-110).
In homogenous societies with almost no social or cultural differences, individuals will plead loyalty to smaller social groups, like local groups that are bound to a specific region or city. People will also try to enlarge differences between groups by focusing on characteristics of the identity of other groups that separates it from their identity (Korostelina 2009: 101-110). In countries with a heterogeneous society forced membership into a social group, in the form of a nation-building process can cause conflict in society. When a state tries to unify it society, for example after it became independent from colonial rule, the government tries to make all individuals within the territorial borders of its state to become member of a social group that is based on a national identity. Conflict can occur when an individual’s or a group’s social identity is not compatible with the identity that is imposed on them by the government. When a national identity is based on the identity of the dominant social group in society, minority social groups might feel threatened and become hostile towards nation-building policies (Korostelina 2009: 101-110).
This phenomenon will be an important aspect in the case of the Civil Wars in Sudan. The role of identity in these civil wars will be discussed later in this thesis.
Tension between majority and minority groups in society is just one example of how a Us/Them perception can develop into hostile competition. Competition between different identity groups is usually over resources and power. When social groups feel that their interests are not secure, it causes the involved groups to feel threatened by the other groups. When one identity group feels that it’s interests are being endangered, the chances of conflict increase. From this situation a security dilemma can arise which has the ability to reshape identities and provoke identity conflict (Korostelina 2009: 101-110).
Therefore, competition can lead to confrontation. Confrontation between different social groups means that society will polarize. The process of polarization makes the social identity of a group more important. Even when group members have multiple identities, confrontation will make the situation more intense which causes members to choose one identity as their primary identity. During the stage of competition a conflict between two social groups is based on allocation of resources and power but when a confrontation takes place between two social groups the conflicts becomes more and more based on the identity of the confronting groups. (Korostelina 2009: 101-110).
Polarization causes an identity to become salient. A salient identity is stronger when it was used in previous conflicts and when group members see it as obvious. Confrontation will also activate group leaders to present their political interests as the interests of the identity group. Identities become more important because the identity groups need loyalty and readiness to fight for the groups identity and interest. One strong identity will be chosen with ideological myths in order to create security, certainty and authority (Korostelina 2009: 101-110). When elites use identity as a tool to secure their interests and that of their social group, confrontations between groups becomes based on their identities. The identity of the
conflicting parties will be idealized and politicized. The conflict is not only about economic interests of political power, but is about the defense of the groups identity, their beliefs, values and basic security. Confrontation between social groups can create extreme feelings that are justified or evoked by an identity. A politicized identity can mobilize members of a social group to fight the other identity group because they perceive the ‘other’ as something dehumanized and evil (Korostelina 2009: 101-110).
This process of categorization that eventually leads to confrontation is the groundwork of the societal security dilemma and also plays a role in the symbolic politics theory.
4.2 Societal security dilemma
Traditionally in international relations a state’s sovereignty and military power play an important role in the security of the state. The state is the referent object when focusing on security. When national security is threatened, the sovereignty or territorial integrity of a state is at risk. The state is threatened by other states, internal actors play a less prominent role. This Realist perspective of security in International Relations thus not focusses on the security of people, but on the security of territory (Roe 2004).
The Copenhagen School broadened this concept of security to other fields, and argued that human collectives are also an relevant object in the study of security. The societal security dilemma it is about the security of a society’s identity. A society is a group that feels united under an identity . The focus of societal security is thereby not on the state, but rather on people. The nation of the state or other societies within the borders of a state are important security referents (Roe 2004).
The objects that are threatened are the nation, as in the people of a state, or social groups. The threat in societal security is focused on losing national unity or the loss of a social group its identity (Roe 2004).
In most states around the world the borders of the country are not the same as the societal boundaries. This means that there are often multiple societies present in one state. Nation-building in the form of creating a national identity therefore can cause problems. A national identity can be threatened by minority groups, but a minority group’s identity can also be threatened by a national identity. Societal insecurity emerges when a social community or group feels that their identity is being targeted or threatened, which jeopardizes the survival of the targeted groups (Saleh 2010).
The term societal security was dubbed by Buzan (1991), it started as a concept that was still focused on the state as the threatened object. The term national security was also used to refer to this concept. According to him society is one of the sector wherein a state’s security can be threatened along with military, political, economic and environmental security.
The inhabitants of a state, the nation, became more of a focus as well. The state is still the central actor in the international system, but in the field of security there are other objects that deserve attention too (Bush & Keyman 1997: 314).
Societal security is about the development of traditional patterns of language, culture and different identities within a state. When these patterns and identities develop in an
unsustainable way it could threaten a state’s sovereignty. The problem hereby is that when the state is seen as one society one does not take into account the fact that a state, a nation and a nation state are different concepts. (Roe 2004: 41-42).
There are only few countries in the world where the state can be described as a nation state, like for example Japan. The term nation state means that within the physical boundaries of the state there is one unified, homogenous society. A nation can also be divided over several different states, for example the Kurdish people as a nation are living in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Most states around the world or not homogenous which means that there are living multiple societies, and thereby multiply identity groups within the territory of one state. Especially on the African continent where states were formed by the hand of a colonial power, multiple societies with different identities live in one state (Roe 2004: 43).
Most of the post-colonial states in Africa did not have a strong sense of nationality. The focus of the inhabitants of a lot of African states are locally or ethnically instead of national.
According to Deng (1997) ethnic conflict in Africa is partly caused by the existence of a weak state.
Before the colonial countries established their colonies and began to rule the country, the traditional African societies functioned politically, economically and socially through a system that was based on families, clans or tribes. These organizational units were based on a shared ethnicity, where symbols like language and culture were important. The era of
colonization , with its creation of territorial borders caused these groups to be separated into different states and were now facing other local groups of people with different value’s or languages (Deng 1997).
The end of colonization brought a new problem to the now independent African states. The only binding factor between all the different ethnic groups, the colonizer as common enemy, had left a new fight for control of the state started (Deng 1997).
A national identity is a political project for the sake of nation building. It is a motivation for people within a certain territory to stand behind and familiarize with a specific identity or ideology and in extreme circumstances even kill or die to defend it. Just like the state, identity groups may militarize to defend their identity. Saleh (2010) describes that confrontations between societies, whether state or non-state actors, destabilize political security, which has negative effects on the sovereignty of the state.
Different societies within a state are characterized by different identities, aspects of one identity can become a threat to a national identity or the identity of a social group. This means that for example religion, or ethnicity could be securitized because it threatens national cohesion or when religion is part of a nationalization process it could be securitized as a threat to the identity of minority groups with a different religious identity (Saleh 2010). Especially multi-ethnic states have higher chances to face threats towards their societal security within the territory of one state. These societal conflicts can turn violent when weapons and external parties get involved, but the most likely action taken by threatened identity groups is to strengthen their identity by increasing their social cohesion and emphasize their distinctiveness from the national or other community identities. Cultural
myths and symbols of a group’s identity like language, history and religion are an important aspect of this process (Saleh 2010).
Particularly when an identity is linked to a territory, the defense of a society is done by military means. Other ways of defending a society’s non-militarily is reconstructing the groups identity. Identities that are too weak need to be strengthened which often involves the Self/Other dichotomy. This means that when an identity groups tries to construct its identity it often involves the Other. A part of the identity of a group can be the hate or hostility towards another identity, especially when this Other identity is seen as antagonistic (Roe 2004).
Waever et al (1993) separates the term societal security from the state and concluded that when a society loses its identity, it’s survival is threatened. Society consists out of
communities. These communities have different identities. These identities and communities are important because more than ever political loyalties are not expressed on state level but more expressed by units like identity communities. Waever et al (1993) understands societal security as the defense of a community against a perceived threat towards its identity (Roe 2004).
Now that the term societal security is clarified, it can be linked to the security dilemma, in order to fully understand the societal security dilemma.
The security dilemma also has its origins in the Realism theories of international relations. Realism is normally focused on states and how states act in an international system of anarchy. In this international system the state is an object that is seen as a given fact and is not looked into. The end of the Cold War caused a shift in Realist thinking. There concept of security was broadened and a more attention began to show for the idea that states are not just only sovereign entities (Bush & Keyman 1997: 314).
The security dilemma therefore used to be focused on the behavior of states, but it can also be applied when explaining the behavior of society or social groups. Shortly said, a security dilemma can be described as a process whereby one’s actions to improve one’s security, causes a reaction which can eventually lead to a less secure position or a violent conflict (Posen 1993).
So shortly said the societal security dilemma focuses on the security of a society as a whole, or on the relation between social groups within a society. The security dilemma for this theory is focused on the fact that social groups want to strengthen their identity. This can evoke an reaction by another social group which feels that its identity is threatened. This reaction can than decrease the societal security of the first society (Roe 2004).
4.3 Symbolic-Politics Theory
Vinci (2006: 51) describes that mobilization for armed groups in general depends on three criteria. The first one is the need for people that are willing to take up arms and fight. The second criteria is the need for means of force, like weapons and the basics of survival. The third and last criteria is the ability to exercise direction.
The need for people who are willing to take up arms and fight is obviously the most important aspect of an armed group to mobilize. Therefore reasons of motivation are important and interesting to look further into. People can be motivated to start fighting in four different ways. One of them is loyalty. According to Vinci (2006: 52) identities, like for example ethnicity, are an important instrument that can create loyalty to or among a group of people. Elites in the form of political leaders can use identities as a tool to gain support from an identity group.
This concept is described by the symbol-politics theory. The theory describes that people create an identity of who they are, but also create an image of how they see other groups . An identity is often based on historical myths and symbols. These myths or symbols can be religious traditions, historical events or a language (Kaufman 2006).To understand Kaufman’s symbolic-politics theory it is firstly important to elaborate on the concepts of myths and symbols.
Specific myths and symbols can cause specific emotional feelings. These feelings manipulate the actions individuals. It is therefore that political elites use myths and symbols for political purposes. For example, political elites can use historical events to provoke feelings of fear or hatred by their own ethnic groups, against another ethnic group to gain support. Elites
associate their selves with ethnic symbols of their own ethnicity to create a connection with the people of their own ethnicity (Kaufman 2001 & 2006).
A myth is in Kaufman’s book Modern Hatreds (2001:16) described as a belief that is shared by a group of individuals that give certain events and actions a specific meaning. Whether or not this common belief is factual true or not is not important, what is important is that a myth constructs a form of mythology around a specific event which gives it a broader meaning. For example the events in the United States whereby in a short period of time black American teens were shot by the police creates a myth, whether true or not, that the American police is specifically targeting Afro-Americans .
Symbols are closely linked to myths. A symbol is an emotionally appealing reference to a myth. For example, Michael Brown who was shot by the police in Ferguson, became a symbol of the myth that the police in the United States have a bad relationship with Afro-American teens and are using excessive force.
The symbolic politics theory is built on the fact that emotions, not rational calculations motivate people to act. Emotions cause people to change their goals. When at first creating wealth is the most important goal in one’s life, emotions can change this in a way that an individual becomes more focused on security (Kaufman 2001 & 2006).
A selection of different myths and symbols have the ability to manipulate emotions and evoke new emotions. Emotions can justify hostility, create fears of group extinction or lead to chauvinist mobilization. Thereby, myths and symbols strengthen the identity of individuals and groups. What further makes myths so powerful is the fact that they can refer to both interest and emotion. Not only hate towards the other identity can cause violence, but the fact that the other identity harms their interests is being raised by myths as well (Kaufman 2001 & 2006).
This identity than has the ability to give the membership of an identity group a meaning and motivates support for a specific group. It gives answers to the questions; who am I? What does it mean to be a member of this group? And who are our opponents or enemies? The degree of hostility in the myths and symbols and the degree of extremism of group leaders depends whether or not the use of symbolic politics turns into a violence between identities which may eventually lead to an armed conflict (Kaufman 2001 & 2006).
When fears towards other identity groups and hostile myths are strong, a context is created for elites wherein the use of extreme politics becomes as popular method under people with the same identity and thereby generates support for the leaders cause (Kaufman 2001 & 2006).
The chances of a conflict between two identity groups becoming violent are more likely when one of the two groups fears that their existence is at stake. This fear doesn’t have to be
realistic, but when myths and symbols create this fear, it is likely that violence erupts (Kaufman 2006: 53).
5. Methodology
This chapter will focus on the methods I employ in order to give an answer to my research
question; What is the role of identity in violent conflicts and what are the motivations for
armed groups to organize or identify their organization on one or multiple identities? Furthermore I will motivate the selection of my case, which are the civil wars in Sudan and why I selected the theories I discussed in the previous chapter.
The theories my focus is on are the social identity theory, the societal security dilemma and the symbolic politics theory. My expectations are that this combination of theories can explain why identities are important in violent conflicts and why armed groups organize or identify their organization on an identity. The social identity theory and societal security dilemma are helpful to explain how identities become important and polarized in a society, while the symbolic politics theory will be used to explain how an identity is politicized by elites who use these identities for support. These theories combined therefore are relevant in order explain the motivations for armed group to link there organization to a specific identity. The research data collected for this research is obtained by executing a secondary literature study. I collected information from a variety of studies that focus on the different civil wars in Sudan. Some are geographically focused on the war in a specific area of Sudan, like for example Darfur or the southern states. Other studies focus on a specific period, for example the First Sudanese Civil War that raged the country between 1955 until the Addis Ababa Agreement in 1972 (Baas 2012; Ayers 2010; Deng 2006; El-Tom 2006).
My focus is on armed groups in three different parts of the country; The Arab Islamic North, the African Christian South and the Western region of Darfur which is a predominantly Muslim region, but inhabited by people with Arab and African identities.
The motivations for conducting my research based on the conflicts in Sudan can be found in the fact that there is a great amount of data available on this conflict. Besides that the conflict is by many described as an identity conflict. Deng (2006), who was the first ambassador for South-Sudan to the united Nations described the former state of Sudan as a country that is in a painful search of itself, which is hurting itself by conflicts that are caused by a national identity crisis. A long, partly historic, process shaped the identities that are now in conflict with each other and categorized people on the basis of this identity.
In my opinion it is important to include the violence that is taking place in Darfur, western-Sudan, since 2003 in my analyses to explain the role of identity in the different Sudanese Civil wars. This conflict places the role of identity in the Sudanese Civil Wars in a different perspective. Often the conflict in Sudan is described as a strife between the Arab Islamic north against the Christian African orientated south (Mans 2004).
The Darfurian conflict shows the broader picture of the Sudanese conflict, because it displays the role of people with an Islamic identity in the organized opposition and rebellion against the Arab Islamic government. Although the African against Arab division is also present in the Darfurian society, the fact that the region of Darfur consist almost entirely out of Muslims makes it different from the earlier mentioned North-South division in the rest of Sudan (Mans 2004).
These facts and the matter that the identities and conflicts in Sudan are well documented makes it serve as a perfect case for this thesis.
The dependent variables of the research are violent conflicts and armed groups. The
independent variable is identity. When the term armed group is used in this thesis I mean the definition of armed groups as described by Sinno (2011), as mentioned earlier in this thesis. This means that an armed group is a non-state actor in a violent conflict with a degree of cohesiveness as an organization.
The term identity in this thesis refers to the ability to categorize others and thereby associating oneself with or differentiate from those others. This description of the term identity is closely linked to how Jenkins describes identity (Jenkins 2014: 5-6).
The terms northern Sudanese people and southern Sudanese people are often used in this thesis. They refer to the people who identify themselves with the northern identity; Islamic and Arab which characteristics are closely related to the ruling Sudanese elite. When this thesis refers to Southern Sudanese people the Christian or animalist African identity is meant. This identity is often related to marginalization and oppression by the Government of Sudan (GoS).
6. Identities in Sudan; a historic perspective
This chapter will discuss the violence in Sudan. First some basic information about Sudan will be presented. Thereafter the history of the country will be discussed, which provides the context wherein different identities became salient and social groups created hostile
relationships with each other. Finally the development and characteristics of Sudanese political and armed organizations will be discussed. The aim of this chapter is to present the relevance of identity in the two Sudanese Civil Wars.
Sudan is a, since 1956, independent state located in north-east Africa. The north of the country, with the capital Khartoum is more orientated towards the Arab world. The south of the country, which became an independent state in 2011 called South-Sudan is more
orientated towards Africa. The name Sudan derived from the Arabic word for ‘blacks’; Sud. (Sharkey, 2008; 21).
According to Idris (2005:1) Sudan can be characterized as a major theater of political conflicts and civil war. He states that the different conflicts that raged Sudan offer a good context to analyze competing identities and to better understand how these competing identities lead to violent conflicts. What makes the Sudan case more interesting is that the identities that are competing each other are far apart, basically because the British colonizers did not take the ethnographic characteristics into account when creating the borders of Anglo Egyptian Sudan.
Besides that, the conflicts in Sudan are described as being among the most bloodiest ethnic civil wars in history. Stuart Kaufman presents Sudan as a state with all the preconditions for what he calls ethnic war (Kaufman, 2008:201).
Often it is assumed that violent conflicts on the African continent are a result of religious or ethnic differences. Mohamed Suliman (1998) states that this is a limited and misleading conclusion. He describes that the conflicts in Sudan are primarily driven by scarcity, which is the result of denying or limiting access to natural resources and environmental problems. At the other hand, differences in identity do play an important role, because they are strong in people’s minds. When the initial causes of a conflict becomes blurred, identities can become a social force which can make an conflict more violent. The access to natural and social resources was the primary cause for people to pick up arms in Sudan.
The civil war in Sudan clearly can be linked to hostile identity myths between the north and the south of the country. The symbol of slavery, deriving from the slave trade by northerners who traveled to the south to collect slaves, have created an antagonistic identity image between the two parts of Sudan, which causes the people of the south to look at the northerners with fear and hostility (Kaufman 2001:45).
Slave trade caused northerners to look down onto southern people, which strengthened the hostile relation between the northern and southern identity groups. This historic relationship led to rivalry between both identities which made the two identities to further differentiate (Wassara 2010).
As one can read from the following paragraphs, politics in Sudan have always been related to identities. From the policies of the British colonizer in the nineteenth century until the
moment Sudan separated into two different states in 2011 violence and conflicts over identities were never absent.
Ali et al. (2007) describe the conflicts in Sudan as one that has constantly been focused on fundamental differences in identity, because the people in southern Sudan always resisted against the cultural, religious and political dominance of the north. In addition, Sudan’s society is characterized as highly polarized. Especially when one looks at the Sudan’s north-south identity division this polarization can be observed. Symbols that are related to identity like language, religion and ethnicity, identity are all highly polarized within Sudan’s society. This polarization of identities took place before Sudan became an independent country. The British colonializes who ruled the country between 1899 and 1955, observed two
different societies, the Arab north and the African south, but did not do much to bring the two societies closer to each other and treated them as two different entities. The Brits even enlarged the differences between the most important identity groups within the Sudanese society by implementing a program, which lasted for forty years, named the Southern Policy. This policy shaped the preconditions for a conflict between the most salient identity groups in Sudan (Ali et al. 2007)
This differentiation was not thus only socially, but also geographically in the sense the British colonizer treated the Sudan as two different entities in their policy. This caused the north end south to develop differently in a social, political and economic sense. The efforts by the British to unite both parts of Sudan eventually lead to the first conflicts between both identity groups. The center of the country, the north, was politically and economically more powerful than the periphery, the south. This caused feelings of repression and marginalization among southerners. The southern demands for a federal status of the south were fiercely rejected by northern politicians which intensified the rivalry between the both. The northerners went on with uniting the south with the rest of Sudan, which was effectively a process of assimilation by northern nationalists (Wassara 2010).
The Southern Policy program caused the southern regions of Sudan to be more integrated and orientated towards East-Africa. The two regions drifted apart from each other, created totally different societies with similarly different identities. The north developed economically much stronger than the south which led to marginalization of the south (Ali et al. 2007: 194-198). The British colonizer began to take into account the possibility that both entities would disunite whereby the southern regions would perhaps be controlled by an east African government. The British created a plan to divide the country into two different independent states. The south would be linked to the East African colonies and the Arab north would be more focused towards the Arab north of Africa. These plans were rejected by the northern Sudanese Arab elites because they wanted a united Sudan. In an effort to create unity, important administrative posts in southern Sudan were being manned by northerners which lead to fear under southern Sudanese of being colonized by the north (Baas 2012).
The 1947 Juba Conference, named after the city that now is the capital of the new state of South Sudan, showed the importance of identity within Sudan’s society, but also its important role in Sudanese national politics. The conference was organized in order to formally discuss Sudan’s unity and the role of the northern and southern region in this process (Ali et al. 2007: 194-198).
The inhabitants of south Sudan were reluctant to discuss unity with the north out of a fear to be dominated and marginalized by the north. The importance of their southern identity can be seen in the preconditions they made for a united Sudan. They demanded respect for and preservation of their southern identity. This included recognition and promotion of their culture, language, and African heritage. They demanded more influence on the governing of the country and a more autonomous role of the southern states. Lastly they stated the
importance of equality of all citizens and races within Sudan’s society (Ali et al. 2007: 194-198).
Shortly said, the Juba Conference was by the south Sudan representatives seen as an opportunity to secure equality between both social identities and to defend their identity against oppression by the people of north Sudan. But when nationalists in north Sudan began to spread the Arabic language and Islam to create a nation state with cultural and religious homogeneity, south Sudan lost its hope in establishing equality in a united Sudan.
Policies by the Brits in the south that made the region develop into a different society where for example educational implementations that made English an official language, but also several local languages where used as official languages and missionary schools became part of the educational system. The two regions became also physically separated when north-southern mobility became restricted (Ali et al. 2007: 194-198).
The inhabitants of North Sudan see themselves as Arabs. They are almost all Muslim and are proud of the myth that they are descendants of Arabs who traveled from Egypt towards the Sudan region. Being Arab, northern Sudanese people separate themselves from their southern countrymen who they see as Africans and non-believers , which often goes along with a feeling of superiority towards them. Some Muslim elites saw it as their religious duty to rule over the southerners and convert them to Islam (Deng 1995).
What makes the relation between both identity groups even more hostile is the fact that the historical relationship between Sudanese Arabs and Sudanese Africans is very violent. For a long time there was only contact between the two groups when Arabs came to the land of the southern Sudanese to enslave them and bring them back north. Hostilities between the Arab north and the African south can be traced back to the seventh century. Even then society was ethnically and religiously ranked. Arabs and Muslims were seen as free, superior and often associate with slave trade (Kaufman 2006: 61).
The African ethnicities were mostly revered to as slaves. People who adopted the Muslim Arab identity often referred to ‘’Africans’’ as less human, primitive people (Kaufman 2006: 61).
Before Sudan was the state as we know it today, this region witnessed a centuries long process of Arabization. Over time more and more people began to identify themselves with being Arab. This process began when Islamic nomads traveled south from the region that is now known as Egypt. As a result of Islamization the number of people that spoke Arabic increased strongly over this period. The demise of the Christian kingdom in the fourteenth century and the establishment of a sultanate in de sixteenth century accelerated the process of Arabization ( Sharkey 2008: 22).
Conflicts and hostility between both identities started as early as the nineteenth century, when Arabs came from the north to enslave southerners and took them back to the northern region of Sudan. Even today, when people of the north refer to people that live in the south they will call them slaves. (Deng 1995).
From around 1940 the Arab Islamic identity became actively politicized when Arab elites from northern Sudan tried to create a national identity in anticipation of an independent Sudan after Anglo-Egyptian colonial rule. Arab nationalists stated that the variety of different ethnicities in Sudan owed their cultural supremacy to the Arabs and that every Sudanese should embrace the Arab identity as the national identity. Ten years later the first practical effects of this nationalist ideology could be seen when the Arab nationalist tried to introduce Arab language classes in southern Sudan (Sharkey 2008: 31).
In the fifties , when Sudan became an independent state, many of its inhabitants saw themselves as Arab, and more than half of the population spoke the Arabic language. The new government of this now decolonized state, made the process of Arabization official state policy in order to create a strong national identity. This policy of creating a national Arab identity started immediately after Sudan’s independence in 1965 with making Arabic the official state language and Islam the official national religion (Sharkey 2008).
A few years later Christian schools in south Sudan were nationalized and Christian
missionaries where forced out of the country. Politicians from southern Sudan who asked for English as a second official national language, Christianity as a second national religion and more room for African identities were arrested. Protests by students in southern Sudan, against Arab teachers, who they saw as part of the Khartoum government were ended violently (Sharkey 2008: 33).
These government actions in southern Sudan provoked the first signs of organized resistance in the south against the Arabization policy of the Sudan government. Clandestine schools were built in the jungle where teachings were done according to the pre-Arabization era. Furthermore, speaking non-Arab languages began to be seen as a sign of resistance against the Arab government as well (Sharkey: 2008).
The people of south Sudan started to rebel against the Khartoum government almost
immediately after the country became independent. The major motivation for southerners to start a rebellion was economic and political marginalization by the north (Baas 2012). Francis Deng describes in his book War of visions (1995:4) that in the context of Sudan, the more the North of the country asserted its Arabness, the more the south asserted its
Africanness as a counter identity. He adds to that, that both in the North and the South of Sudan the Arab and African identity changed from an identity of self-perception to a fully politicized identity that was associated with power, wealth and national value’s.
Most scholars see Sudan as a state that is split between the Muslim and Arab orientated north of the country and the African orientated Christian or Animist south. But the situation is more complex. It is important to see Darfur as a third part of this divided country. The western Sudanese region of Darfur will therefore be analyzed separately from the south (de Waal 2005).
Hereafter the different armed groups in Sudan will be discussed. The Sudanese rebel groups can be described as organized armed movements that have risen up against the central government in Khartoum to pursue identity, nationalism, justice, political rights and change in the political system established since the independence of the country in 1956 (Wassara 2010: 263).
6.1 Identities & armed groups in northern-Sudan
As described in the previous chapter of this thesis the north of the former Republic of Sudan can be described as the heartland of GoS and its Arab-Islamic identity The identity of most social groups that are loyal to the government are based on or related to the Arab or Muslim identity. The relationship between social groups in the north and the government varies. Some of them are related to the Sudanese government either financially or militarily (Suliman 1992).
Almost all rebel groups stated that their motivations to fight the regime are based on their aversion towards the government’s policies that neglected different regions of the country. (Wassara 2010).
The process of Arabization and Islamization that angered the south of Sudan was also implemented by the governments in Khartoum to obtain support from the local population in the north. One striking example that showsthe importance of identity within northern Sudanese politics can be seen when focusing on the political career of Jafaar al Nimeiri. Nimeiri was a highly ranked military official who became president of Sudan in 1969 after a military coup. The coup was successful because of the support from leftist groups. These leftist groups and later an Islamist group attempted a coup against Nimeiri’s government, which made clear to him that he had lost a lot of support. The 1972 Addis Ababa Agreement that followed shortly after these coup attempts can be explained as a move by Nimeiri to find some new support for his leadership. He made a coalition that included the army, but also leaders from the south who’s states he gave autonomy (Kaufman 2006: 59-60).
The Addis Ababa Agreement did not gave Nimeiri’s government the support it had hoped for. Few years after the agreement Nimeiri faced again a coup attempt by Islamist and knew that only with their help he could have a stable leadership. Nimeiri concluded that the only way to mobilize people beyond the tribal level was to get sectarian and religious leaders on his side. (Kaufman 2006: 60).
Nimeiri began to rally for support from Islamist and the majority Muslim population of northern Sudan by starting a process of Islamizing his person, the general leadership of the country and all ministers of his government. First Islamist leaders were invited into his government, for example the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and the leader of the party that attempted a coup against him became part of government. This symbolic move was executed to give the government a more Islamic identity (Kaufman 2008: 208-209).
Secondly he urged his ministers to start governing in accordance to Islamic leadership, which for example meant that government officials had to stop drinking alcohol and quit gambling. Also comities where created who’s task it was to analyze the rules and laws of Sudan to see whether or not they were in accordance to Islam. Laws were changed, for example an Islamic banking system was installed and the justice system of Sudan began to lean more and more towards a justice system that was based on Sharia, Islamic law (Suliman 1992).
Nimeiri changed his personal appearance as well. When he characterized Sudan as an Islamic state, he referred to himself as the imam. He began to appear in public wearing Arab clothing which should make him look like an Islamic Sheikh. Furthermore he changed his political speeches whereas he now used a lot of Islamic terminology in his politics (Kaufman 2008: 209).
The regime that succeeded the government of Nimeiri, The al-Mahdi regime also used the Islamic religion as a tool to garner support in the north. But besides the fact that it gave his government more popular support, it also caused a counter reaction in the south of Sudan. Metelits (2004) states that the process of Islamization that were conducted by the Al-Mahdi regime did had its effects on the manner in which the southerners saw their religion. The Islamization process made the Christian religion a more important part of the southern identity. It caused a counter reaction whereby the Christianity became an important tool of mobilizing Christians into the different rebel organizations.
