b Universalidad e inmutabilidad

Sudan is the largest country in Africa and is located in the northeast part of the conti- nent. It covers a total surface area of 2.5 million km², of which 42% is suitable for cattle ranging and grazing, 33% is desert, 18% is covered in forest and 7% is agricultural (IFAD 2002: 1-2). Its main topographical features are the desert in the north and the Nile, which is the longest river in the world. The country is bordered by Egypt and Libya to the north, Chad and the Central Africa Republic to the west, Zaire to the southwest, Uganda and Kenya to the south, and Ethiopia and Eritrea to the east.

Sudan’s total population was estimated at 32 million in 2001, with a population growth rate of 2.6% a year (UNDAF 2002: 9). The population is mostly young; 16% are under five years of age, and 45% are under the age of 15. Such a large proportion of young people implies a high rate of dependency and thus an overloaded social-services sector (UNDAF 2002: 9). Sudan’s population density varies considerably across the country: 33% are urban-based and 67% live in the rural areas. Since 1975, the urban population has grown by 75% and is predicted to grow by a further 50% by the year 2015. The capital city, Khartoum, has the largest population with 3.5 million in 1993 and 5.4 million in 2003 (UN-SUDAN 2003: 3).

Although Sudan is an oil exporter, agriculture remains the most important sector, comprising 42% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1999 and employing some 66% of the population. The major agricultural exports are cotton and gum Arabic, while sorghum (dura) and wheat are grown for domestic consumption. The

production of sesame seed and peanuts is mainly for domestic consumption but exports of these two crops are increasing.

Sudan has experienced a severe economic and financial crisis since the mid-1970s. Per capita income has fallen from $430 in 1980 to $300 in 1990. The country’s foreign debt has risen from $308 million in 1970 to around $12 billion (including principal, interest and arrears) by the end of the 1980s. The country experienced higher inflation in 1988-1989 than at any other time and in December 1988 the International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimated that the rate of inflation was 80%, which was double the average rate of 1987-1988. Towards the end of 1989, inflation reached 100% (Eltigani 1995: 1).

Throughout the 1970s the government adopted an export-led, agro-industrial strategy that endeavoured to restructure the export sector by producing food, sugar, textiles and meat for export and to support import substitution. The assumption was that by developing Sudan’s huge unexploited agricultural resources, the country would be able to provide food security for the Middle East through a combination of Arab and Western funds. The essence of these plans was the expansion of large-scale agricultural projects – a strategy that led to a massive inflow of capital, primarily from oil-rich Arab countries. Public and private-sector resources were also geared towards the expansion of modern agricultural and industrial sectors. In all of this, the traditional sector, which provided employment and income for 70% of the population, was completely ignored (Eltigani 1995: 3). Instead of reforming land-tenure laws and providing credit and other technical inputs to enhance productivity and improve the living standards of the rural population, the development of a modern agricultural sector meant the decline of the traditional sector (Ibid.). As a result, the rural population, which had relied on the tradi-

tional sector for their main source of income, was pushed onto poor marginal lands and their livelihoods became vulnerable to environmental hazards (Eltigani 1995: 4). In addition, the government’s disregard of conservation measures as well as consecutive periods of drought further aggravated the vulnerability of traditional producers. Many of the displaced rural population migrated to the urban centres to join the growing informal sector, while others remained in their own areas and became agricultural labourers. Consequently, poverty and regional disparities started to escalate sharply and by 1985 Sudan was not able to feed its own traditional producers, let alone have any prospect of feeding the Arab World (Shazali 2003: 44).

By the end of the 1970s, stringent IMF/World Bank conditions were being applied to fund payments to Sudan from Arab countries and structural adjustment programmes became an important feature of the government’s economic policies. The essential condi- tions of the stabilization packages in the 1980s included, among a plethora of conditions, liberalization, privatization, anti-inflationary policies and an adjustment and reduction of the exchange rate. Increased taxation and decreased access to social services have burdened the majority of the Sudanese and particularly the urban population and urban workers started to experience declining wages as a result of cuts in public spending. It has been argued that the government failed to put into effect the type of policies that should have gone along with liberalization policies in the 1980s. The results have been that the financial deficit skyrocketed, the national currency was further devaluated, and high inflation prevailed. It was estimated that the government budget deficit shot up from SP 9 billion (Sudanese pounds) in 1989 to SP 68 billion in 1993, while basic food prices rose by some 2,280% in the same period (El-Batthani et al. 1998: 26).

Between 1992 and 1998, government expenditure was slashed by more than 50% relative to GDP, leading to significant cuts in social services and infrastructure

development (World Bank 2003a: xxx). These measures reflected negatively on the well-being of the Sudanese people, particularly on those who were already poor. However, at the same time, liberalization policies created a conducive environment for local business and foreign investors in Sudan (Shazali 2003: 49). The liberalization policies pursued from the 1980s onwards were favourable to the redistribution of national wealth and national income, aiding those pursuing non-productive activities while frustrating the efforts of workers and low-salaried job employees. El-Batthani et al. (1998: 26-27) noted that before 1989 there were only 730 registered companies.

However, from 1989 (when the present government came to power) to 1993 the number of companies in operation rose to 4,230. This massive expansion of the commercial sector was coupled with a contraction of the industrial sector, as it was functioning at only 12% of its capacity (El-Batthani et al. 1998: 27). There was a large growth of

small- and medium-sized enterprises and a concomitant increase in the ‘urban entrepreneur’ class. At the same time, two contradictory processes were generated and the comparatively strong and older urban middle class that existed before lost ground and political influence, while a new group emerged comprising traders and businessmen (Ibid.) with strong links to the political and military establishment. A huge gap between

these classes was thus created and it threatened to tear apart the Sudanese social fabric and damage the existing harmony between the various social groups and classes.

Since the mid-1990s, Sudan’s economy has witnessed a significant improvement. From 1997 onwards, growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has averaged over 6% annually, indicating firstly an expansion in the oil sector, agriculture and, industry. Inflation was brought down from over 100% in 1996 to single digit levels by 2000. This has been accomplished by cutting public expenditure to around 11% of GDP (1999- 2001). Compared to other countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, this is considered to be ‘very low’ (DFID 2005: 6). In an effort to restore macro-economic stability, the government introduced harsh market reforms in February 2003, which put an end to many of its interventions in the economy. These measures included eliminating fixed exchange rates for the Sudanese pound, removing all subsidies on fuel and basic food items, and privatizing state enterprises. Privatization has resulted in additional lay-offs and pay cuts for workers in privatized enterprises. Ordinary people – particularly those eking out a living in micro-scale self-employment – have seen a further deterioration in their standard of living. Their limited incomes have insured that they can hardly access essential services such as water, electricity, education, transportation, health, sanitation and housing.