Sudan’s ‘Zero Point’: A Warning for Fragile States and the Future of Political Order
Sudan’s current crisis, as articulated by former UN official Abdulgadir Mohammed, isn’t simply a failed transition or a power struggle. It’s a descent into a “zero point” – a dangerous juncture where the existing political order has collapsed, yet actors continue to operate as if it hasn’t. This concept, borrowed from philosopher Slavoj Žižek, offers a chillingly accurate framework for understanding not just Sudan’s plight, but the growing fragility of states globally. The implications extend far beyond Khartoum, signaling a potential shift in the nature of conflict and governance.
The Anatomy of a Zero Point: Beyond Setbacks and Towards Disaster
Traditionally, international responses to state failure focus on “setbacks” – temporary disruptions to a pre-existing path. Aid, mediation, and sanctions are deployed with the expectation of eventual recovery. However, Mohammed argues, Sudan’s situation is fundamentally different. It’s a “disaster” that destroys the very conditions for recovery. This distinction is crucial. Defeat implies a possibility of rebuilding; disaster suggests a systemic collapse requiring entirely new foundations.
Consider the example of Syria. Years of conflict haven’t simply derailed a transition to democracy; they’ve fractured the state, eroded social cohesion, and created a landscape where basic governance is absent in vast areas. Like Sudan, Syria operates with a recognized government, but its control is largely symbolic. The proliferation of non-state actors and the normalization of violence demonstrate a similar “zero point” dynamic.
The Role of Polarization and the Erosion of Trust
A key driver of this descent is deliberate polarization. In Sudan, and increasingly in countries like Lebanon, political elites exploit existing divisions – ethnic, religious, or regional – to consolidate power. This isn’t a byproduct of conflict; it’s a strategy. Polarization narrows the political space, making compromise impossible and transforming politics into a zero-sum game. Once trust is destroyed, rebuilding a shared national identity becomes exponentially harder.
Pro Tip: Recognizing the deliberate use of polarization is the first step towards countering it. Supporting civil society organizations that promote dialogue and bridge divides is crucial.
The ‘Slow Poison’ of Institutional Decay: A Postcolonial Legacy
Mahmood Mamdani’s concept of “slow poison” provides further insight. He argues that many postcolonial crises aren’t sudden failures, but the result of long-term, incremental damage to political institutions and civic life. Neoliberal policies, often imposed through structural adjustment programs, exacerbate this decay by weakening the state’s social foundations while strengthening its coercive capabilities. This creates a vacuum filled by force, as seen in Sudan’s current reliance on paramilitary groups.
The situation in Zimbabwe offers a stark example. Decades of economic mismanagement, coupled with political repression, have hollowed out state institutions, leaving the country vulnerable to instability and reliant on external aid.
Beyond Old Ideologies: The Need for New Thinking
Mohammed rightly points out that Sudan cannot be rebuilt within outdated ideological frameworks. Islamism and neoliberalism have both demonstrably failed to deliver inclusive politics and stable governance. New thinking must move beyond these binaries, focusing on rebuilding social contracts, strengthening civic participation, and prioritizing accountability.
Did you know? Research shows that countries with strong civil society organizations are more resilient to political shocks and less prone to violent conflict. Investing in these organizations is a critical component of long-term stability.
The Future of Fragile States: Trends to Watch
Several trends suggest that Sudan’s “zero point” scenario could become increasingly common:
- Climate Change as a Threat Multiplier: Environmental stress exacerbates existing inequalities and resource scarcity, increasing the risk of conflict and state failure.
- The Rise of Non-State Actors: Paramilitary groups, militias, and criminal organizations are filling the void left by weakened states, challenging traditional notions of sovereignty.
- Geopolitical Competition: Great power rivalry often fuels conflicts in fragile states, as external actors support different factions to advance their own interests.
- Information Warfare and Disinformation: The spread of false information and propaganda can exacerbate polarization and undermine trust in institutions.
FAQ: Understanding the ‘Zero Point’
Q: What exactly is a ‘zero point’ in the context of state failure?
A: It’s a moment where the old political order has collapsed, but actors continue to behave as if it still exists, leading to a dangerous disconnect between reality and political processes.
Q: Is the ‘zero point’ inevitable?
A: Not necessarily, but ignoring the warning signs and continuing with outdated approaches significantly increases the risk.
Q: What can be done to prevent a ‘zero point’ scenario?
A: Strengthening institutions, promoting inclusive governance, investing in civil society, and addressing underlying grievances are crucial steps.
Q: How does climate change contribute to these situations?
A: Climate change exacerbates existing vulnerabilities, leading to resource scarcity, displacement, and increased competition for resources, all of which can fuel conflict.
Sudan’s tragedy serves as a stark warning. The international community must move beyond traditional approaches to state failure and embrace a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics at play. Ignoring the lessons of the “zero point” risks condemning more countries to a similar fate.
Want to learn more? Explore our articles on fragile states and conflict resolution for deeper insights.
Join the conversation! Share your thoughts on Sudan’s crisis and the challenges facing fragile states in the comments below.
