Page 80 - EVOLUTION OF THE SUDAN PEOPLE’S LIBERATION MOVEMENT(SPLM),

date. Divisions for vision and ideology of SPLM have always been cemented in different camps
through ethnic manipulation and neo-patrimonial networks. From Rogues (2014) observation
of the sustained crises since 1983 to 2016, one can argue that SPLM does not have a unified

political program and unity of purpose to answer to both the social and national question. The
fact that more resources are directed towards the military and security sector at the expense of
development suggests that expectations at independence in 2011 will remain wishful thinking
and a dream. Finally, the SPLM will be least placed to address security challenges as these

leadership crises have peaked with prevailing civil war since 2013.

The question of policy choices at the economic front is what has betrayed the movement. Neoliberal
globalization involves cutting of social safety nets, deregulation, privatization, elimination of
the concept of pubic good, and minimization of social spending in areas such as health, education
and welfare. The state is deprived of economic policy autonomy as in the process undermine
democracy and state capacity to play its traditional role.

5.2.6 Conclusion

This chapter sought to analyze the extent through which the SPLM came to power through a

negotiated process that allowed it to capture state power in 2011 following the referendum. The
chapter highlights the challenges that faced the movement in answering to the both national
and social question that it sought to answer through armed struggle. The chapter concludes that
the SPLM has been unable to address the fundamental questions that informed the liberation

movement such as provision of basic services and creating political and economic stability.

This conclusion is based on the analysis of quality of life indicators and politics within the SPLM.
Indeed, the SPLM degenerated into civil war soon after 2011 with adverse effects. It suggests that
from the outset, the movement was not prepared for statehood and nation building. This is largely
attributed to failure of the political leadership to provide leadership that inspires confidence

among the people and answers to their collective sacrifices towards political independence. On
the contrary, corruption, nepotism, economic collapse and war has prevented the movement from
addressing the fundamental questions behind national liberation.

74