South Sudan: A Nation in the Hands of a Mob

A perspective on resolving South Sudan's ongoing crisis

The nation now has a fortunate break at the snap of a finger, the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement. The agreement has frozen in place the picture we have of South Sudan as a nation at odds with itself. The parties to the conflict have come to a very measured decision. It is too early, however, to dress for success.

We still need a big footprint in a political settlement. I hope leaders on both sides of the divide could make out the faces of the real issues of governance and democratic transformation beneath the white mosquito net of SPLM’s ambiguity. What might at first sight appear to be a call for change in South Sudan’s ruling party has been the first rumblings of the power struggle that is to become the bloodbath of South Sudan. As a result, the SPLM has in short come to be a device to pay off scores, old and new. 

The note of urgency to achieve a just and lasting political solution to the crisis cannot be ignored. South Sudanese have faced the obloquy and affliction of this senseless disposition which should not be entertained to be our people’s regular lot.

The Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) should now help the parties to set their faces to their tasks, come February 7, 2013. The ‘government’ and ‘rebels’ should have no cause to be impatient with a genuine, inclusive and comprehensive dialogue on governance in South Sudan. This is a cause hot in the hearts of all South Sudanese.

If we are to educate ourselves to a stance of self-criticism by reflection and introspection, the current form of rule in South Sudan is the lingering sway of dictatorship in a nation of diversity. Badly designed and inadequately targeted, the system of governance we have in place is vulnerable to the charge that South Sudan is heading to an authoritarian rule that is not only ruthless but abysmal.

What we have as the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan is merely a saving clause. The ruling party has imposed it on us wholesale. The very thing has set the SPLM up to fail! Passed without contest or even comment, it is a broken reed and a romantic strain in the expectations of South Sudan.

Our political dispensation, as it is now in the Constitution, is one in which conviction has hardened into domination. The cost to our viability and vitality as a nation will have to be calculated in terms of decades if a change of heart is unforthcoming. What South Sudan wants for life is a gear shift from the present political notation of SPLM to one capable of the demanding regimen of democracy. A piece of work like that should stand up to hostile scrutiny in all public settings.

The new dispensation should in essence be characterized by building participation and stakeholder inclusion into every stage of the political process. Inclusion has long-term spin-offs beyond the life of any political leadership. A participatory political process yields at the end informed and motivated citizens who can be excellent advocates to promote democracy and good governance.

Instead of killing democracy stone dead and drawing unwelcome attention, SPLM should have pointed up the importance of securing sustainable recovery from our violent past by focusing sights on change and progress. It will have supplied a moving chapter to the history of this great nation.

But as matters stand now, SPLM carries within itself a host of contradictions and conflicts. If the resemblances of 1983 and 2013 are accidental, the coincidences are remarkable!

SPLM just trades good grades for favors. This has meant that the party has little to keep it occupied with the interests of the country. The party members and enthusiasts have long entrenched themselves behind the ‘liberation argument’; and given up on the arduous task of reconstruction and regeneration of South Sudan.

 Every now and then, SPLM gets into convulsions to the rhythmic beating of the drums of a generalized tribalist political cover that hinges on ethnic loyalty and clan patronage. Anything else falls anywhere on this continuum. That includes nation building.

What South Sudan will die for is giving a useful structure to the process of looking to the future. We need structure, stability and continuity. SPLM cannot do that alone, if not at all. Key decision points are coming up in the IGAD-sponsored Addis Ababa peace talks in February 2014. As a nation we do not need to set up unrealistic expectations. At the same time, we cannot fail to be concerned with the lack of the will or the mind to be reasonably nationalistic.

The people of South Sudan have long been betrayed by the attractiveness of the 2005 CPA equation into forgetting the post-CPA South Sudan. Our most enduring and overriding purpose over the length and breadth of our history has been to have an independent state. Now we have that, but only just. No one in the current leadership has bothered to come up with a mention of our national vision. Whatever has transpired in the name of a ‘vision’ is just an off-the-shelf framework to impress outsiders and amuse ourselves with the novelty.

A new vision matters. This would have saved South Sudan huge amounts of trouble. Instead, it has overturned the emphasis on justifying the direction of resources to one purpose and not the other. We have, in fact, excelled at restricting change to fish market pidgin. The whole political establishment in this country has fallen prey to getting a toehold in that market. This has deprived ordinary South Sudanese from the political dignity of democracy to which they have a historical and human claim. It has turned believers in the ‘New Sudan’ ideology to stone. New Sudan itself, SPLM’s darling, has become a dolorous lament. The youngest independent nation on earth has been seized instantly with paralysis.

Sentiments in the South Sudan of today have been transformed into a tangle of frustrations and uncertainties. This touch mingles with senselessness and sound madness. The veneration which grew up around SPLM’s ‘New Sudan’ political ideology was such that South Sudanese were captivated with ceremony. But time has done what it is good at, putting a period on the end of that red-pencilled sentence.

As the talks for a political settlement to the conflict get underway again in Addis Ababa in a few weeks’ time, the SPLM divide should stay clear of brinkmanship and instead display what dose of statesmanship they still have as a leadership in South Sudan. We hope good governance will not be mentioned only in passing. Let no one be under the illusion that democracy in this country can be seen only through the rose-tinted spectacles of the ‘liberation argument’. The negotiation delegations should keep up the push for compassing the full range of national issues at the heart of the crisis.

 

They should remember that their party SPLM has been tarnished with the spills and thrills of being the liberator and the ruler. No one should run for the cover of silence or indifference; change is evidence of life.

Any viable solution reached will be welcome with a strong prejudice in favor of this great, budding nation. Any subtle differences in nomenclature should not distract. Because this is essentially SPLM’s carnage as a party. The ongoing crisis has nothing to do with South Sudan as a nation. Non-SPLM members on the negotiating team are just there to raise the GPA. As such the ruling party should clean up its mess as soon as possible.

The lowest common multiple for both sides of the SPLM divide is to bear the double load of duty and unity so that suspicion and mistrust do not take a darker hue during negotiations. There are good enough reasons for a timely deal that will prevent future duplication of efforts. The message the rest of the nation is waiting to hear is that any such political settlement will be set by verve and radicality to the extent that it will not get distorted further down the chain of SPLM ranks and files.

For the rest of us here at home, there is a crucial role to play. We all acknowledge that the bottom has been knocked out of all the hopes we have for South Sudan. This is our time to ensure that there will be a fluid exchange of goodwill and political dialogue at the national level to steer the country through to the next stage of being.

There are many other than SPLM who are a good fit for this country. SPLM’s ‘New Sudan’ political agenda is now dust and webs. It has burnt its darling to the ground. One could imagine SPLM might at any time crawl into bed with a new wife. We might yet get another mob and a war to wage.

The bottom-line is: we should not leave this country in the hands of a terrible mob. Amen.