Each year, Transparency International—a Berlin-based NGO that monitors global graft—releases a Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), which reports corruption levels throughout the world by assigning the rank and score of surveyed countries. Each year, Sudan appears, predictably, in the last few spaces of a long list; among the lowest of the low.
Despite its poor performance, Sudan does cling to one key distinction. Unlike even the most desperate states—including many of its struggling and war-torn neighbors—Sudan’s score has consistently dropped over the past five years. Since signing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), rather than progress, Sudan has fallen even further behind in terms of what TI’s index measures.
But what exactly is that? Transparency International collects surveys from independent experts, formulates a number on a 10-point scale, and assigns each country a rank based on that (information on their research and methodology can be found here).
More important than the lists and figures is what they indicate. In the case of Sudan, a dismally low and ever-decreasing score reveals that its leaders have failed to translate the country’s natural wealth and considerable international investment into equitable and steady economic progress for all of its people. It has failed to use the opportunities presented by peace negotiations, international aid, and prospective elections to realize essential political reforms and improve the country’s governance.
It’s no surprise, then, that this year Sudan takes its place at #176 of 180 countries, with a score of 1.5 out of 10. Surrounded by headline-makers like Somalia, Myanmar, Afghanistan and Iraq, there, at the end, Sudan enjoys the company of its political and economic peers: the world’s failed and failing states. This seems appropriate; Sudan’s own list of well-documented failures is long: failure to protect its own people, failure to negotiate in good faith, failure to promote peace and justice….it goes on. Lack of transparency and accountability comprise a destructive and pervasive theme – a strategy, even – that defines the dealings of a government with a wanted war criminal at its helm.
As much as Sudan risks becoming a failed state at the hands of its own destructive regime, the vast country has also been failed – by members of the international community, many of which dominate the index’s upper rankings or, like China, have worked hard to improve their own. Implicated in Sudan’s failure are many—from the passive acquiescence of African leaders to his crimes, to the outright denial of these violations in the Arab World; from the empty promises of wealthy Western countries, to the ethical void in Chinese influence. Non-state actors also share the blame: rebel groups, opportunistic bandits, and corporate interests alike work to destabilize and pillage an entire nation for the benefit of the few.
