South Sudan: third time is a Charm!

South Sudan: third time is a charm!

David Majok, April 16, 2013
It is interesting when one thinks of the opportunities gained and lost in South Sudan since 2005. It is also perfect to look at the past from hindsight and make conclusions as to what could have or should have happen in the given time period—2005 to present. This is especially important in our situation in South Sudan because of the euphoria created by the prospects for change ushered in with the CPA: for it has provided South Sudanese with level of optimism that is unrivalled by any time in our history. Thus, as part of our recent history or story, one would be remised if one does not contemplate on what was missed in the march to freedom. This story or history can be explained by the charms—CPA, Independence and Cooperation Agreement that was signed last year but did not come into full force till March 2013.

As indicated above, the CPA was one of the lucky or charm moment in our history. We gained our autonomy and with it incredible levels of leverage to set in motion policies and programs that would have transformed Southern Sudan. Our people were expecting much more than what could have been achieved. The quest for peace, freedom and development was outpaced by the expectations, given the lack of skills and experience required to deliver on the promises of better life. The period also has been marred by the uncontrolled excess of corruption, nepotism, lack of rule of law, and above all, vision. Or, the vision that was espoused during this period of CPA implementation was mainly geared towards attaining the right to self-determination at the expense of all other needs. The work of building a sustainable society was left to the NGOs and IGOs, some of which have delivered basic emergency needs, such as mobile health units, water sanitation in the severely affected areas of the country.

The referendum, which constituted a bigger part of the politics of CPA, has also provided South Sudanese with hopes for better future. South Sudanese made history in terms of turn out, despite of the road blocks that were erected in trying to make the process a difficult one. However, the perseverance of SPLM has paid off in standing on the principles of the CPA (spirit and letter) till those who chose to be part of history, registered in South Sudan and all over the world, to cast their decisive ballots to complete the accorded rights enshrined, not only in the doctrines of international law but also the CPA itself.

The second lucky charm moment in our history and story of struggle comes as a result of the independence, with the pronouncement of “erga omnes” confirming that South Sudan became an independent state on July 9th 2011, with full rights and responsibilities. This milestone has also created euphoria in our nation and many, for the first time, felt that a new phase in our history and story has begun. This was another point of departure that many have waited for, to allow South Sudanese to break with the recent but unpleasant reality of transformation that did not materialize.

With Oil completely in our hands and destined to enrich our lives and change the course of our history, nothing would have stopped us from attaining what we have so long suffered for. An independent country, shared history of suffering, strong referendum results indicating the will of the people to create their own destiny, which only few nations, have so willingly chosen, is a testament to better future.

Then the short lived euphoria was eclipsed by the breakdown in relations with Sudan, hence, the shutdown of the only source of income for South Sudan. Suicidal as it was, many in the nation applauded the decision of the leadership that implied, among other things, a sense of sovereignty, control over our own resources and a desire of people to be free from the shackles of Khartoum. Though seen as a decisive step in post secession, the decision exposed South Sudan to the realities of dependence on single source economic output. Many have indicated that the decision to shut down oil production and flow through Sudan was short-sighted and did not factor in vulnerable state the economy. The SPLM led government kept on and maintained a strong position on its decision to shut down the oil flow. This decision was marked by the Panthou crises, which also exposed South Sudan to another short-sighted decision to go to war under the assumption that the international community would willfully accept our interpretation of the facts on the ground and side with us against the intransigence of Khartoum regime’s approach to bilateral relations on the issues of separation. The International Community, fairly or unfairly, always rushes in at the last minute to rescue its reputation but leaves those affected by the conflict to fend for themselves, which was the case in the border areas affected by the war.

AS well, the Panthou war and the resultant international community’s indignation on the occupation of the border town exposed our diplomacy to the harsh reality of the bilateral, regional and global politics or realpolitik. South Sudan was caught unprepared to deal with how to fend off the accusations of being an aggressor state. Futile efforts were made by the ill-trained and unprepared diplomats in the finesse of international diplomacy, to educate the world on the geography and historical boundaries of the provinces of Sudan which translated into international borders as of July 9th 2011.

The protracted negotiations under the AUHIP and UNSC decision to force the two parties into negotiated settlements of post secession issues was instrumental in ratcheting down the rhetoric of brinksmanship. The September 2012 Cooperation Agreements and Oil Transportation Deal that was reached has paved way for calculated measures of building bilateral relationships on better terms. The results of these negotiations have finally demonstrated the need for responsible leadership and governance on the part of South Sudan.
Now the Oil is flowing, it is incumbent upon the leadership to kick start the economic engine of South Sudan with strong emphasis on immediate needs of building infrastructures, institutions and identity for our nation. This is an opportunity that has been missed twice before and with the resumption of our main source of income, the government and leadership in South Sudan is faced with moral duty of changing the image the world has about us. The image that the world has about us can be captured this sentence: South Sudan is new country, tribal, poor, corrupt, lacks ability to govern itself and lawless. This view of the world can be changed or transformed with committed leadership and determination to destroy the vices of what we fed the world about us.

This third phase or lucky charm moment is the last ditch effort to resurrect the image of the Nation and of the Party that fought to give us a chance to choose between being a second class citizens or free willing people. The SPLM, as movement that fought the liberation war and helped us make our choice, is now facing a make or break moment with South Sudanese people. The path is open and the decision is theirs, since the party controls every aspect of the way forward. We have presented South Sudan through our vote for independence, to the SPLM in “silver plate,” so it is their chance to show us what the SPLM Party is made of.

SPLM: The Prospect of Transformation

SPLM: The Prospect of Transformation

March 11, 2013

As the SPLM gears up for its Third National Convention, many questions will surely be asked about the SPLM’s overall performance (???) since it became a political party and the restructuring required to put in motion the vision for the next phase. While this will for sure put the party on the pedestal of transformation, a much required element in the development of the SPLM, the question of accountability within the ranks of the party is yet to be translated into action, given the wide perceptions of unresponsiveness of the regime to changes from within.   Thus, creating a transparent and responsive political machine that is different will continue to be a challenge.  Addressing these challenges will do much to sustain SPLM’s monopoly on power for some time to come; however, this cannot happen until a complete attitudinal change takes place from within in order to meet the recognized ideals of the party. While this is obvious, there are other elements of the transformation that remains wanting for those, from within, who wish to establish a credible political party.  Hence, steps taken now are crucial in establishing a sound grounding against the backdrop of the failures of the last seven years.

A good place to start from for the SPLM is the draft constitution and manifesto of the SPLM of 2008, which is currently under review to be adopted at the 3^rd National Convention or the Extra-Ordinary Convention for the restructuring the party. Though full of ideals for democratic transformation, one constant that has piqued interest is the centralization of the party’s powers and structures (at both state and national levels).

The SPLM as a party, is a national behemoth, which at its current structure, is ungovernable, and cannot be controlled from the Centre. Thus, the centralization of powers of the party in one hand, at both national and state levels, is too big a task to undertake. Why? The current structure of the SPLM is fashioned as a politico-military organization under which a single command structure is required. This type of structure favors a strong man at the top and the rest of the institution of the party is beholden to the center, leaving the grassroots of the party void and lacking the ability to inform the political discourse at the center. This type of party structure engenders a political entity that is controlled at top, but lacks clear and transparent institutions of accountability to the larger group.  Central to this notion is that the Chairman alone holds the key to any real change within the system, regardless of what the party members may perceive to be important. In this kind of a structure, the political maturation and transformation is spread thin, which only leaves one person to be responsible and accountable but at the same time uninformed about the needs of the local (States, Counties, Bumas and Payams) structures. This then hinders the prospect of democratic transformation in the party and by extension, the government/nation, since the powers of both are fused together. The recent sacking of the Governor of Lake State gives a glaring example of the far-reaching powers of the executive in effecting change at lowers levels of government without much consultation. A process, though granted in the Transitional Constitution of South Sudan of 2011, but its actual application calls into question the ambition of having a democratic institutions, where other organs of the state are rendered meaningless.

Thus, to be much more effective in implementing its grand ideals and programs, the SPLM Committees working on the transformation need to completely overhaul the party structures.  The national wing of the party and the states Secretariats must be separate entities to allow for the party to focus on building a truly national brand, and a truly democratic national political movement/institution.  As well, the states parties can form their regional identities, outside of the national party identity. The separation is crucial to building a more representative identity for the party, as it will allow for less “crowding out” effect at the top brass level of the party, such as what is being perceived to have been happening since its inception, and with pronounced effect from 2005 onward.

This separation between SPLM National and SPLM States does not mean that the National party will not have structures at the states level. It will continue to have national structures at the states level but administrative structures of the SPLM National level should act as independent entities within states, far removed from the political programs of the states. This will allow the party to focus on national issues as well as shed itself from the responsibility of controlling everything at the States level. This will also allow State Parties to form their own entities, develop different political platforms and programs that represent the need of the states, instead of working on the grand proposals at the national level that are far removed from disparate needs of the diverse regions of South Sudan.

Along the same thinking, new generation of leaders will be allowed to spring forward from different regions at the states level that can be able to vie for states or national leadership. As well, with the separation between the national and states political parties, the national SPLM Party will be able to focus attention in addressing the national agenda and leaving the local policy developments to local state parties.

The SPLM leadership at the national level can and must work hard to strengthen the legislative and judicial organs of the government by providing it with constitutional cover/powers to apply existing laws at the state and national level. Because the reason why the other organs of the system are not working is not because they are only lacking capacity; they are lacking the backing of the executive to act within their purview, granted under the Transitional Constitution. Capacity can be built within the system overtime, through oversight, knowledge transfer and training.

The SPLM can do this in order to allow for pluralization and democratization that it has enshrined into its manifesto and political programs. Having such ideals and not utilize it for the maximum interest of the party is akin to discussing transformation, but in reality working to monopolize the political space, without looking inward for self-reflection.  Ignoring this crucial element of transformation, the SPLM as a party, will continue to be a cause of displeasure amongst the electorate, who have moved on from celebrating the independence to expecting results of the peace dividends and democratic constitution.

South Sudan: Social Stratification Russian Style!

David Majok: March 9^th 2012

Like South Sudan, Russia obtained its status as a state after the break-up of the Soviet Union. And prior to the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the surest way to attain status and influence in the Communist Party is to be a member, hence increased social status. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the creation of Russian Federation, this marked the end of the communist era and with it the egalitarian society it once wanted to create.  Society and social structures has been totally re-aligned, from a supposedly classless society that is modeled after the much renowned Karl Marx, Socialist society, to a less ideological one, but highly fractured, where the former die-hard socialist transformed themselves to new capitalist, acquiring most of the vast and underperforming industries to private entities.

Most of those who succeeded in acquiring the vast wealth are those who were either within the system or former security agents of the regime (KGB). Their close proximity to power and knowledge of the system gave them unprecedented access to decision makers, which allowed them access to the nation’s resources, hence, the creation of supper influential communists, to overnight rich oligarchs. The new rich in Russia have completely parted ways with the communist identity and accepted or embraced true liberal market philosophy.

The early 1990s were exceptionally prosperous to the former communists who have gained from the windfall of the demise of the USSR. However, the level of embrace to the global new liberal market economy led to the unruly collapse of the market and introduced Russians to the reality of free market corrections that spared nothing on its way, whether rich or poor; hence, social stratification or restructuring of society in Russia highly deepened. Those who have made huge sums of money through the stock market found themselves, either at the bottomless pit of the new demon (free market, class dominated social order) or highly protected from it all, through their continued connections to the powerful within the Russian Federation.

Now, like Russia, the new super-rich in South Sudan can be associated in the same parallel. Those who are currently enjoying the riches of the nation are either political operatives of the SPLM, whose wealth and fame, in most cases came about with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) or following thereafter.  Like Russia too, the elite in South Sudan or the rich have strong ties to the ruling party, as such, won favorable terms by which they were able to gain access to unprecedented amount of riches.

The class, which is something new to our vocabulary, is now alive in South Sudan, with vast disparity between the new super-rich and the poor, with no supposedly middle class that can tamper with clear separation between the top and the bottom strata of our society. Even though there is somewhat a middle class, the number of which may not be big enough to act as a buffer (such as in the developed world), between the rich and the poor, are less influential either. And according to the recent data released by the RSS about the state of civil service (which should have acted as educated middle class), are substantially minimal in affecting any balance in the disparity between the rich and the poor. As well, with the high rate of illiteracy (rated at about 80%) to cite a conservative estimate, the disparity may continue to provide the new nation with daunting task to surmount in the near future.

On the other hand, rural population have been largely abandoned in the unintended endeavor of social stratification, where majority of the population reside; with limited access to equitable share of the national wealth and a heavy burden of the national problems, such as insecurity, famine, disease and lack of means to extricate themselves from their predicaments. It is clear the disparity between urban/rural and rich and poor will likely continue to negatively affect social stratification and allocation of resources, if not adequately addressed, to correct the imbalance in the between the rural/urban centres divide and especially, the ones who are connected within the system. As the social stratification continue to take roots, concerted efforts by policy makers to balance the divide through well crafted policies, to put a human face to the disparity that is growing in South Sudan, insecurity and other social problems will continue to dominate our moral consciousness.

Furuther, as the government strives to lay down the foundation for a more equitable society, the need to engage those who are affected so as to create ownership in the process of state making or nation building will be crucial. This is very important specially when using non-indigenous experts with limited understanding of the locally important indicators, much associated with cultural traditions and regional/tribal politics in the development process is very important, to say the least. The model that has been deployed so far has presented more studies, confined by the donor willingness to engage, under solely self-interested geo-political dynamics and far removed from the transparency they require, will continue to prevail.

Thus, confronted by these new realities of class and wealth distribution, the government must be keen at leveraging the talents of its educated diaspora to fill in the gap that seems to be widening daily. This is not only for the long term viability and credibility of the government but also for effecting credible institutions that can deliver on these needed social programs that must address the increasing gaps or divide. Additionally, engaging the diaspora at this nascent stage will surely provide the grounding needed in developing best practices and experiences in addressing the current challenges, instead of using highly paid foreign experts, while creating an underclass of well deserving and educated South Sudanese diaspora that are willing and able to deliver on all the indicators that are pertinent to the development of our nation.

“A Noble Lie”

David Majok November 17, 2011
The freedom of our nation was attained and the spirits of those who perished are now in heavenly surrender and peace, as the true sons of the nation begin the journey to reclaim their glorious past. Since the journey was long, so was the pain of building up the leaders of the movement and the foot soldiers that have allowed dreams to come true and to share in spirit, the bounty of good fortune, status and recognition.

In the good spirit of those fallen heroes and heroines, the leaders of our nation have built a solid foundation that will allow those who are not bread for leadership to continue to, in their selected places in society, support those specimens of leaders currently in control to provide the aspiration that we have suffered for, in a golden platter, in due course, of which time will be determined. For those who are of the best quality of leaders cannot fulfill their wish for the people, unless given free will and undeserved obedience to accomplish their tasks.

For the spirit of Ngundeng has prophesied that the leaders of today, their wisdom and vision, may need to continue as the destiny has chosen them to lead! If deterred, our history, fortune will be destroyed by the good will of the almighty, the purveyor of peace and justice, because good leadership that have been predetermined for our generation and generations to come may end in disaster.

Do not be deterred by the callus in your feet, for they will bother you for one week or two, and fall off; new surface skin will bring to bear the beauty of your African identity. This is the same as your current cry over the growing pain of our republic. As it grows, fewer and fewer maladies will be discovered and all the praise will go to those whom you have given power to shape your future, a call that has been filled and billed by the blood of your sons, daughters, brothers, mothers and fathers.

Those who lead you, in their luxury, think of the best for you, as leaders and guardians of our new republic. In their esteemed places, their intellectual capacity cannot be filled by mediocre living, and their access to your resources, only enables them to protect you from things seen and unseen. This division of labour is not unique to the quest of our republic. It can only be achieved through the normalcy of all knowing their places in the strata of our society. For a Marissa brewer and seller cannot be a drum maker, and farmer of cassava cannot be a blacksmith; the unprofessional soldier cannot protect the jewel of our nations. All of these professions are stratified in our society for the reason of building our nation. So, in silence, praise your leaders, and in the open cheer them on, for your undivided attention to their safety from the wanting eyes will, in surety, affect their good names and high places.

For nobility in our society is made through the struggles, and in that, their places must be protected and names exalted. And in perfect union with our goals for better life, high moral and long history of sacrifice is given its sacred sanctity. So, lay away your fears; lay away your concerns and march to the tune of higher authority bestowed upon Mabior, Mayar and Machar, in the unblemished prophecy of Ngundeng.

South Sudan and the need for Regressive Hypnosis (Analysis)!

South Sudan and the need for Regressive Hypnosis (Analysis)!

 David Majok November 14, 2011

In psychology, therapy has been established as an important tool to free oneself from the compounding effects of life’s pressure, whether caused by cumulative psychosis or genetic underpinning of one’s lot in life. This has been established in order to secure healing and future prosperity for the self and the community. In the context of this piece, the opinion expressed here is much related to the same genesis, but the term is used to denote a psycho-political hypnotic regression.

Over the last twenty seven years, South Sudan has gone through traumatic transformative events, some of which were brutal and some are promising to the future of the nation. The struggle for liberation caused many to perish and many to suffer trauma, either through direct involvement or through the side effects of the conflict itself. Many of those who are affected, have selflessly given their youth, future, family and dreams to the cause of liberating the people of South Sudan, for what seems to be, a cause much bigger than them: freedom of the people of South Sudan people. Some may have not envisioned the type of future that the ending may bring, but with hope and faith, have charged along, at times, not knowing if the future is achievable, given the dark days of the 1990s. But with every struggle, there are surges and corrections in the direction of the intended goal. This is just a natural phenomenon associated with any ideals: taking stock of what happened, learn from it and move-on along the road to victory.

As the brave surgeon on, experiences of the war added to their languages and the unintended consequences of that journey, affected, adversely by the struggle to be free and acquire attribute that cements the true belief in the reason for justice, which encompasses, freedom, liberty, democracy and equity: the banners of the struggle. Though these were true to the essence of liberation, the meanings associated with these iconic words seems to have engendered stronger apathy in actualizing its impact. The nuances of the call to arms are becoming too difficult for interlocutors in the corridors of power imprint in themselves and the nation.

The way forward in this struggle to identify with the past is best exemplified in the regression hypnosis, to revisit the past so as to live the future, designed in the ideals echoed twenty seven years ago. That those who are in the corridors of power owe it to themselves to reflect on their struggle to bring freedom; first, to extricate themselves from the winner eats first assertion, to a much more reflective leadership that is built on the notion of equally free society, borne out of the need for justice and all its other siblings. Second, recognize that creating new normal is not selective domain of one political entity over the other, but a quest that those who are capable must share in realizing it. Third, in order to cement the legacy of the heroic past, heroes and heroines, never boast about their impact on the battle fields, but by their humbleness in the face of future. For the future is our collective enemy. It may not need the same tools that the heroes and heroines have fought the battle, but a new kind of tool. One that they can be instrumental in affecting, in the lives of people for whom they have so dearly sacrificed; this, by shear influence of their histories and commitment to stay focused to achieve a free and willing society that seeks better its entire population.

For freedom can never be dissuaded by fear of arms, psychological intimidation or a force of elimination; for, if such was the case, ours would have been futile effort in search of freedom, justice and equality; hence a homeland. It is this same antidote that will surely allow us to prosper and make the nation that many have sacrificed for but have never called her home. As such, the attributes associated with a free society may not be an easy endeavor to implement, but working towards achieving the ideals set forth by those who have put in motion the wheels of our New Republic, cannot be rendered motionless because of the inconveniences of its laboring parts. The test for those who are in power is to reproduce enabling parts that functions and deliver the same result in law, culture and conviction, no matter how painful the exercise may be, to continue to create the necessary condition for its success.

In conclusion, in this endeavor, there should be no short-cuts to achieving the collective will of the people.  Rule of law, equality, freedom, access to services and democratically principled governance should be the face that our new nation must exhibit at home and to the world. As well, the exercise of revisiting the past will act as a testament to the resilience of the current political entity in addressing its deficit and learning from it, whether small or big, in order to resurrect its image, for now and the future.

Making Sense of the decision to relocate to Ramciel!

David Majok October 14^th2011

In the aftermath of the decision to relocate the capital of the Republic of South Sudan to Ramciel from the current location, many rational and irrational critiques has been presented in either supporting or questioning the decision made by the President and the
Council of Ministers. Many of those who have argued either for or against the decision have elevated some valid points; however, those points have merely focused on issues of access to land and jurisdictional control, rather than focus on the constitutionality of the decision itself.  The question that needs to be asked at this transitional period is this: Does the current president and government have the right mandate to decide on the future capital of South Sudan?  If so, can it be made at the executive level, by by-passing the legally mandated body (the National Legislative Assembly and the Council of States?) from exercising their duty to officially pass into law the wishes of the people? And finally, at the current state of affairs in South Sudan, is this decision the right one, morally, and economically, given the dire straits our people are facing?

The last question on the list of questions posed here has been exhaustively addressed here and I will not surely delve into it; however the remaining questions are part of the crucial elements of the argument in trying to make sense of the decision to relocate the capital. As much of the chatter has been conflated either with conspiracy theories or factual errors, just to name few of the rationale presented.

The issue of constitutionality of the decision is very important at this juncture in our history. The presidency should have been mindful of its limitation, given its position as it relates to the transitional constitution. If the current government is transitional, then
it does not have the power to decide on this issue.  The current transitional government as it is apparent from its name, is transitional by nature and cannot make any final decision on any large scale projects except that which deals with provision of basic services and national security. It cannot give itself a mandate that it does not have by deciding on issues such as the relocation of the capital.

First, the executive has not provided any justification, worthy of relocating the capital, with the exception of Bari Community refusal to allocate land for use to build vital institutions of national government of the new Republic. Second, the government has been silent on the official process of negotiating acquisition of land from Central Equatoria Government and their official position. Third, the government has failed to address the concerns of the Central Equatoria Government and people, legally, to warrant for honest
exchange of positions and compensation needed to allow for proper redress for those who will be affected or are affected by the increased presence of the National Institutions of Government. Forth, there has been no official offer from the National Government on
how to compensate the government of CES on the loss of infrastructure in Juba and facilitation of proper infrastructure in Yei, if the CEG decide to accept the relocation. And fifth, there has been very little sensitization by the national government on the concerns of the Bari Community and many who have been affected by the ordeal of the land acquisition process. As a responsible body, it is the National government’s duty to show respect to the local community, since it constitutionally granted them the rights to their land.

As a transitional government, it has the right to begin the process of consultation (whether through plebiscite or parliamentary hearing) to provide for wider participation and ownership of the decision, paving the way for a final decision to be made after the
transitional period.  This will allay the current concern and also provide for a cooling off period, by addressing the issue of illegal land acquisition and establishment of legal and urban planning necessary for the relocation.

The second question is: whether the executive can make the decision to relocate the capital without referral of the proposal to the National Legislative Assembly and Council of States for a proper process, in reference to the transitional constitution? The constitution has been overtly conflicting on this issue, especially, when it is seen from the provision of article 92. In article 92, on the delegation  of powers of subsidiary legislation, the executive gets a free hand to make laws by inference that says, “ the National Legislative or either of its two houses may, by law, delegate to the President, the Council of Ministers or any other public body, the power to make any subsidiary regulations, rule, orders or any other subsidiary instrument having the force of law…” However, this reference conflict with other instruments of the constitution that indicates in Article 55, section 3 subsections, b &
d, which provide a clear direction as to how national endeavours such as the relocation of capital shall be addressed. First, it must be initiated at the executive level and enacted into law by the national legislature; and second for the purpose of allocation of funds or resources to put into force the will of the people, in reference to the priorities of the government, the legislature authorizes the allocation of resources.

These elements of the constitution has been either ignored or in hast, the government want  to absolve itself from the hard work of negotiating land tenure and postponed the inevitable by relocating the capital to Ramciel, hoping that it might not face the same hard questions that it is currently dealing with in Central Equatoria. The Transitional Constitution is clear about the land issue and has developed category of land tenure and
acquisition, wh ich states clearly that the government can expropriate land by using the right legal mechanism to compensate those whom their land has been acquired for common good.

With regard to the prioritization of government business, still, the national legislative assembly can redirect the priorities of the executive to the urgent problems that is facing the nation, instead of being by standers in this national debate.

In conclusion, in order to avoid misconstruing the priorities and acting on the provisions of the constitution, the executive must follow due process and refocus its effort in addressing the most urgent cases affecting our nation. The National Legislative Assembly and Council of States must not abdicate their responsibilities and assert their position on this issue. As well, the transitional period should not be used as a full mandate by the government to engage in lofty proposal that is devoid of real substance to the people of South Sudan at this nascent stage, where the demand for delivery of basic services is out-weighing a need for a world class capital.

 

David Majok can be reached at
d07wau@yahoo.ca

The measure of a President: old faces, new Republic!

David Majok, 

August 4, 2011: It must have been a very daunting task for the president of the Republic of South Sudan to try to break with the past, in selecting the members of the new National Assembly. Balancing the factors for success and meeting the demands of ever increasing pressure to accommodate the old guards with the expectations of the people of South Sudan will continue to dog the president for sometime to come.  This is unique, especially, when the need for consensus building is out-weighing all other pertinent issues, such as democracy, rule of law, delivery of basic services and reducing corruption.

 The presidential decrees appointing the new Transitional National Assembly and the Council of States for the Republic of South Sudan is an indication that what is old is all new again. With this in mind, two streams of thoughts emerged in mind as I read through the two decrees:

Stream one; it reincarnated the nightmare that all will be the same, specially, when those who were implicated or suspected in corrupt practices are welcomed back with open arms to serve in ever influential positions in the government. Much elaboration will not do much here, or bringing up the names of people who were implicated will not suffice to make the changes that we so sorely need in order to break with the past. However, for reference’s sake, please review the list of those appointed for the Council of States, to make your own judgement.

Stream two; here, the author is going on a wild (but real) goose chase, to extrapolate on the decision to reintroduce old guard as saviours of the New Republic is not only to accommodate, but to also silence them in order to allow for the smooth transition, transformation and consolidation of the power and influence in the hands of ever increasingly worried power brokers in Juba; and, to avoid any discontent from the returnees of the South Sudan political class that have been disenfranchised from Khartoum as a result of the Independence on July 9^th 2011.

But, how can the President be comfortable with recycling the old guards into the political domain of the New Republic, without looking into the potential for change as he correctly asserted during the independence celebration address to the nation and the world alike? And, how effective will these old guards be in implementing the programs that the President has initiated through his address to the nation at the inception of the Republic? And if in the many years since 2005, they have worked so hard to undermine the President through lackluster performances, among other things, as ministers, opposition figures and down right as enemies of the state, with regard to those who served under the umbrella of the NCP proper. What change will they bring?

I hope the president thought through all these scenarios before he initialed the decrees to bring to prominence those names of the politicians. If these questions have not been considered or contemplated, the president will surely be undermining his own legacy as a leader that worked so cautiously to steer the South through into independence. It seems as if the President has been highly reluctant to move beyond the interim period and the failures associated with it, for the sole purpose of accommodation, a hallmark of his success in buying time to achieve independence. But who will buy this same politics now that we are free?

As a citizen of South Sudan, I want to see the President succeed in his efforts to bring hope for a better future with infusion of fresh minds and ideas; guidance in service delivery; steady and accountable government; impartial legal system; and best amongst all, influential and effective institutional governance that we can all boast about.