Right to dissent earns treason in a frail leadership

Dissenting views earn prison terms

Right to dissent earns treason in a frail leadership

By Opoka Christopher Arop

If witnessing the disappearance of individual liberty in the old Sudan causes me to be unduly sensitive to even the faintest of it in my own new country, then my attempt at analysis of what is happening in Juba today may be out of focus.

I am not here condemning [wish I were though] parliamentary investigations committees, but are these investigations that are similar to centuries old witch hunts of yesteryears, without the supervision, guidance and intelligence of elected officials on the one hand and qualified professional academicians on the other; as of today’s [trumped up] treason charges which appear only qualified by those who whisper into presidential ears: are these charges any comparison, less a charge for ridiculed deathly laughter?

Certain government agencies, such as the national security, presidential guards and a host of more secretive layers upon layers of security operatives are today confronted with a real dilemma. Pardon those who find themselves under machines created by those who are now labeled traitors, looters, thieves of democracy and the like. Plotting failed coups as a career. They are obligated to maintain [in my opinion] security without doing violence to the essential liberties of the citizens who work for them [it is also my opinion that it is the citizens who work for the security servicemen and women, because while ordinary citizens pay taxes and demand nothing in return, security personnel live off tax payers contributions, very least, what remains of what citizens pay after the people high up, middle and rank and file discount their personal portions of what is openly referred to as a national loot.] The government is neither serving the core interests of the majority public.

What is the worst fear; that you are to be removed from power through a looming coup or that widespread discontent with your leadership is a cause for concern? Must you arrest and [kill] those who oppose your characteristic leadership and management of the highest office in the land; how many will you afford to put in jails, convict in secrecy and persecute in public, all in the guise of a treason crime? Is there no other option [perhaps there is not in your case]? Can you not [simply] stand down and perhaps learn from your critics what lessons you might, if your remaining ounce of humility will permit, especially if the new government energy is somewhat constructive and exemplary? Why must you feel ordained to shoulder the shame of this nation, which you hold as if it belongs to a single liberation? Have you forgotten that, while you slept in comfort and dreamt of plans to free your people, many more were sent to gallows, while your private security in the games of comradeship kept guard upon your snores or nightly escapades?

Remember a catholic Pope has stepped down from a seat prepared for him by divine manifestations [catholic Christians think so], down from a position that could only be bequeathed by Godly death! This Pope’s reason was health and reason. Health and reason seems suitable for the many lot in the South Sudan government [away from rudimentary old adages of gray hairs equated to wisdom.]

For those in our national security agencies and personal security to stop their primary orientation of master and servant, jumping to how highs, that may require special and defensible security measures.

But no such problems arise with instruments of mass communication and the role of journalists. In that area there would seem to be two alternatives: either we believe in the intelligence, good judgment, balance and native reasonableness of the South Sudanese people, or we believe that government should investigate, intimidate and finally legislate to convict. The choice is as simple as that.

 The right to dissent [dispute, differ, rebel, oppose, disagree] �" or, if you prefer, the right to be wrong �" is surely fundamental to the existence of a democratic society. This is the first right that disappeared when a nation stumbled down the road toward SPLM/A totalitarianism.

Adolf Hitler once said: “The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it will force those who fear it to imitate it”

The SPLM/A fear of successive regimes in Khartoum has no doubt cultured in the liberators the very fears of a liberated people, the very fears of the power of a free speaking and questioning public, the very fears of change and the wish for permanency. This is why while South Sudanese celebrated the birth of a nation, they inadvertently sold and sealed off their freedoms wholesale to a circle within circles of whispers of evil.

The choice is also as simple as this, that to disagree with the government while offering an alternative and seeking audience with a citizenry is no crime by any true democratic principles and standards.

It is become mainstream of South Sudanese tradition for us to cry for regionalism in all its forms, including the always populist [at the very least, popular secretly among many Equatorians]; also for us to differ with our neighbors [based on their tribe, education, false/rightly acquired wealth,] to suspect their motives, to denounce their policies or political beliefs. But to suspect them of treason, of allegiance to foreign powers or greed of power and filled with alien ideology, is probably more widespread now than ever before at any time in our short national history; from the days before Anya-nya to bickering on Ethiopian borders.

That there is danger of individualistic interests and subjugation of national cohesion cannot be denied. That there is need for legal, constitutional methods of protection would seem equally obvious. But the current sensations which assail us on all sides should not blind us to the fact that treason, propaganda and witch-hunting have been employed by every tribe and state since the beginning of history. The Chinese, two centuries before Jesus Christ, spelled out techniques and methods of operation that are still valid today. Abel Alier warned us in his youth as in his writings where he repeatedly cautioned against today’s chapters from appearing in his later writings; so did Joseph Oduho and his colleagues as they attempted to hold peace conferences during war: and many other warnings of the effects of our random administering of selective, interest-based justice.

If this contest [search for traitors who are then charged with treason] is to continue indefinitely, we must, as in this looming war, have a care for the morale of the residents of Juba and residents of the least war-affected states across the Republic of South Sudan, that are awash with internally displaced persons [most IDP’s have during the war been indoctrinated with the idea that where they settle next is their rightful home, by a conviction of might is right].

This in addition to an acquired culture among our elitist-sect exuberance for luxury in government and all its levels, has elevated our political benefactors to corruption standings high and incomparable with the rest of the world. And yet we [the citizens] are worried and apprehensive. Our politicians are also an impatient people, anxious for quick solutions, often intolerant of others’ opinions and always desirous of action.

The individual’s independence of judgment must be protected. The government cannot be hurt [is not hurt] by public rhetoric and judgments, nor must such government be protected against sensational headlines or irresponsible broadcasters. But so far as I know, nobody in this country has ever lost his or her freedom because of media reports. We have forgotten that the thing that makes this country what it is, is not our ten states [eleven if you embrace Abyei], it is not that we have fought as a unit against our common enemies or anything else, but the fact that South Sudan was born out of a fight against the very roots of political, economic, social, educational oppression of past governments, be they made up of a select South Sudanese sympathizers.

The demand for total freedom and justice for all is still a living cornerstone that brings all South Sudanese to agreement. That we are people seeking to institutionalize an all encompassing legal system [people-interest-based constitution review] that is fair to all and in the interest of individual and group liberties as well as tolerant of diversities [if there is such a thing as tribal reasoning, views, feelings] reflecting our multi-ethnic present history�"where we have the right to believe that any law is a bad law and agitate for its repeal; where with few exceptions a man cannot be convicted unless the rules of evidence are followed.

This very fact should make it difficult to apprehend and convict persons for treason because a trial in open court may mean divulging information that would be damaging to national security [there is need to define national security, so that it is the same or changes in a reasonable, explicable pattern, open to public debate.] To conduct a treason court behind closed doors, away from a seemingly fairer and more accurate interpretation of evidence by the general public and in other instances �"interpretations of the proceedings for the public by an informed, objective and impartial media; is a prerequisite for democracy and a fruition of the rights of the accused. I believe that, because this is only the first open court case of treason, many more such cases may have suffered unimaginable fate because either the public was not interested enough by the case to develop interest in the rights and liberties of those who sought to exercise their right to dissent [Dr. Peter Abdelrahman Sule has been my favorite character as well as Dr. Lam Akol; one day they are accused of treason, the next they are pardon.]

It is deplorable that we have come to suspect each other more than before. It is regrettable that individuals and some organs of government opinion are disposed to convict people by association or before they have been tried. If this tendency is accelerated, it may induce widespread fear and endanger the very right of dissent. But so long as neither the state nor an individual can [is allowed to] take punitive action against a citizen except through due processes of the law; we shall have in our hands the weapons to defend our personal liberty and our national security. This second subject, national security must not be aligned with and associative of the president’s office and his hold to power.

Our situation is not too bad, not as yet. At least we haven’t yet reached the point where we must follow, in fear that we live with the shame of selling the family parrot to the town gossip.