Category: Most Popular

Unmasking the Invisible Hand of Futile Peace in South Sudan

BY: Deng Lueth Yuang, Economist, South Sudan, FEB/12/2015, SSN;

I think South Sudan’s peace is elusive because IGAD is “stupid.” Messrs. Mahboub Maalim (Sec. Gen. of IGAD), Ethiopian Prime Minister Desalegn and Co., tried their level best to bring peace to the South Sudanese people on time but failed to rise. Through appeasement, threats of sanctions, negotiated settlement and coercion, none of those have worked.

Ironically, when CCM (Chama cha Mapinduzi) of Tanzania intervened to mediate the intra-party dialogue, it was able to find some leeway at the expense of returning the status quo to Juba.

However, this South Sudan’s conflict has produced some ripple effects across Eastern African states and the international community. Some of these impacts are positive and negative.

I will solely dwell on the positive effects to the wider eastern African states – Kenya, Sudan, Uganda, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Tanzania. Congo DR, Djibouti, Eritrea, Rwanda and Burundi are out for they are deemed neutral in this conflict.

Hence, every member state wants a piece of our national cake – petro-dollars.

Uganda intervened at the whims of Kiir government to defend Juba against ‘forceful takeover’ (with no sugar-coating, it is called a COUP) by voracious White Army with renegade soldiers of the national army.

Kiir administration is paying and owing them millions of dollars for their undoubted brave sacrifices to save the young nation from apocalypse.

It is a known fact that Sudan is happy and laughing at South Sudan killing themselves in the name of democracy. She is enjoying, siphoning off South’s oil in her terminals and getting a fat cheque from declining oil revenues.

At the moment, no one is critiquing what she is doing and she is in great spirit as we are occupied with the war.

In the wee hours of the rebellion, Kenya championed a shuttle diplomacy to return the country back to normalcy so as to continue her economic monopoly over South Sudan. But to no avail, none came as a breakthrough. Now, Kenya is a hotbed for announcement of rebellions, and a ripe hosting ground for thousands of elites and ‘foot’ rebels.

Tanzania has entered the fray to spearhead her interest in South Sudan. Perhaps, she needs Juba and rebel elites to invest, spend or waste the few remaining and looted petro-dollars on Tanzania’s socialistic economy.

For the past few months it has been hosting the intra-party talks, Arusha and its environs are teeming with full resorts, hotels, bars and accommodations glimmering in a twilight scene from dusk to dawn.

To stress it further, according to recent denouncement by one of the international community officials, the Addis peace is just a joke because the negotiators are enjoying bar life 24/7 with their $2000 a day stipend.

Sooner than later, Arusha, and Dar es Salaam will displace Nairobi as a regional hub of refuge and spending of blooded dollars from Juba.

But conceding the fact to that, thanks to the Australian based SBS Dinka Radio for today’s candid interview with former president of Ethiopia, Gen. Mengistu Haile Mariam. Now we have clearly understood many of the whirlwinds surrounding the close association between the peoples of Ethiopia and southern Sudan.

Theirs is a mutual neighborliness and friendliness based on understanding of human suffering, redemption and liberation.

But the current Ethiopian regime, not her people, is swimming in crocodile infested waters. It seems to be supporting the rebels on one hand and the government on the other. That is systematically biased. It is jeopardizing peace.

Back to the invisible hand of this war, every war creates two groups of refugees, namely: the economic who are the ‘haves’ and humanitarian who are the ‘have-nots.’ The former who have financial muscles are a foreign government’s happiness to welcome and incorporate them into her economy.

The latter is a threat to her national security for they come with heavy burden on the state to provide more humanitarian assistance rather than for the government to depend on them economically.

That is why it is crystal clear that the hidden hand of economy depicts that most of Eastern African nations are dizzy dallying with our peace. Our peace is for sale and is lying in the auction market with no immediate buyer.

The highest bidders are not yet out, and the auctioneers are many. So the current bidders on the floor could not distinguish who is shouting out the correct price.

We are hallucinating. We are hearing too many voices in our brains!

This conundrum however has created a buzzing remittance market for these nations hosting up to two million South Sudanese in major cities, and refugee camps. Among those are refugees with sustainable means of livelihoods such as the ‘haves’ or economic refugees, students, patients of war, visiting and relocating government officials, and relatives to the diaspora South Sudanese communities.

In essence, about half a million ‘diasporians’ send in millions of dollars each month to help their loved ones displaced by fighting. All of that money ends up in the host nations!

However such pouring in of millions of dollars into eastern African economies from all over the world has created a booming money transfer business which is very lucrative for the local and international banks and Somali-run hawalas (Amal, Dahab Shill, Juba express, etc).

The first two segments make billions of dollars annually on money transfer services such as sending charges, exchange rate differentials, taxes, and other levies which remain in the receiving countries financial systems.

Imagine, if South Sudanese government was nationalistic, it could have developed the whole nation within a decade for it was born in a 21st century.

Ensuring a free democratic state with accountability could have given rise to neo-classical economic liberalization policies such as capital and labour mobility between states.

The remittances market could be producing millions or even billions of pounds to help boost national revenues. Internationally-based financial institutions such as Barclay, FC Stanbic, HSBC, Bank of America, Agricole Bank, etc could have established shops here in Juba.

Likewise, famous insurance companies such as Jubilee, AIG and AON among others could have made life easier for the poor innocent souls of the South. Unlike this kind of regional and local based banks which are adapted and prone to corruption e.g. partly owned by government officials and their relatives.

Consequentially, as long as the war in South Sudan is not ranked ‘worst’ on the humanitarian disaster scale, the sweetness of our blood will be tasted in faraway lands where people-of-means have run to for refuge.

As the saying goes, “one man’s poison is another man’s meat” or vice versa. South Sudanese butchering themselves create fruitful opportunities for other nations.

The ‘diasporians’ are busy working overtime to ensure their displaced loved ones are able to live through the hard life of being a refugee or a temporary resident in another man’s country.

So my country men and women, be blessed and remain with this mantra of the invisible hand of economics – create more havocs in your home country, pay more money to your relatives and develop the economies of the host nations.

I think YOU South Sudanese are not yet fed up of “TKK” – TOA KITU KIDOGO Wee!

The commentator is an Economist. Facebook – Deng Lueth Yuang.

Why I am opposed to IGAD & US unjust role in Addis Ababa peace talks

By: Gatkuoth Lok, South Sudan, FEB/09/2015, SSN;

Look, a reminiscence for a while; what happened in South Sudan on 15.12.2013 was not a failed coup attempt but succinctly an assassination attempt against Dr. Riek Machar Teny by his former colleague, President Salva Kiir Mayardit. Why that assassination against a colleague, and the would-have-been-innocent-aspirant of 2015 presidential election?

Kiir is the right person to answer this question properly.

For my part, and in nature, this failed assassination attempt was intended to herald a paradigmatic susceptibility to life presidency. This was what exactly happened in the mentioned date and presently is the undoubted true version worldwide, realized correct in the end, opposed to Kiir’s fabricated failed coup attempt.

Another undeniable truth is that Kiir himself mass-massacred over 20,000 innocent Nuer civilians as a pre-supposition to his kiiroproject implementation paving his way to institutionalization of life presidency in the Republic.

In the mind of simple president Salva Kiir, it was his conviction that he had to crackdown his political opponents and whosoever he deemed sympathizing with them. Thus came to act the assassination plan and mass-massacring of the civilians in Juba.

One has to ask a rational question, whether or not the aforementioned Kiir’s eventual institutionalization of his stay in power for life must have been the right kernel as of why he directed both assassination attempt and genocide against Machar and Nuer people respectively.

Well, you should figure out more reasons on your own.

In all Kiir’s sinister actions against the State, Machar and Nuer Nation, methinks that IGAD and US stand accused of having taken Kiir’s side in the war coming into being and its perpetuation.

It follows that president Kiir is a project of both IGAD and US. Let us prove this by conscientiously having a critical look into the succeeding part of the discourse.

To begin with, allow me to ask the following questions. Is IGAD neutral? To give a simple answer to this question, I answer no it is not, for it is dancing to the tune of Kiir’s government. How do we attest our thesis?

We attest our thesis when we objectively know the fact that in war against Machar’s pro-democracy forces, IGAD always sides with Kiir’s government. When and How then? The good example is Uganda, which sent her troops and arrived in Juba on 13.12.2013, and were part and parcel of Kiir’s 15.12.2013 failed assassination attempt.

The coming of Ugandan troops to South Sudan territory in time and transportation of Kiir’s 15,000 Dutku Beny, his special army, proved it beyond any reasonable doubt that Kiir in fact premeditated the 15.12.2013 failed assassination attempt and the aforesaid genocide. This truth of fact shall drag Mayardit to ICC.

Have a look: proving this right further, Uganda is one of the member states composing the so-called IGAD claiming to mediate peace talks in Addis Ababa. And before peace began, Museveni of Uganda spoke on behalf of IGAD leaders (realized in the peace talks table all being favorable to Kiir) that in 4 day time he would either terribly defeat and kill Machar or coerce him to acquiesce cooptation under Kiir’s regime.

Oh, one has to ask this question; does IGAD’s new proposal, on 1.2.2015 reflect part of Museveni’s paraphrased declaration? Yes, it does.

And that is why it must be held true that IGAD has been fighting South Sudan rebels alongside Kiir’s genocidal forces all of whom became co-operators and executors in carrying out genocide against Nuer people at the watch of Ban Ki Boon, the UN secretary general.

Since he knows very well that IGAD is never neutral and yet watching us smiling still to let continue the IGAD-Kiir’s Kiiroproject of genocide on Nuer people.

Is UN chief duties functional dependent on US likings? Ki Moon is the right person to give his rational and empirical answer to this query.

In a more clear way, IGAD currently has been siding with Kiir at Addis Ababa’s peace talks table. This cannot be refuted in anyway by any thinker unless a tabula rasa minded human person told to talk without reasoning out, so to say.

Let us shed more light on this claim. The irrefutable substantiation is when IGAD designed an agreement last year favorable to Kiir giving him more 3 years in Office to rule the very people he annihilated and again this year, on 1.2.2015, the very IGAD brought forth the same agreement in a typical-compelling proposal too favorable to Kiir, surrendering to him the same years in Office and reducing Dr. Machar to what we do not understand to date and which we will not accept for good, since it is a matter of life and death.

This is unquestionable support for Kiir’s stay in power for life (IGAD’s leaders common good). Thanks to Dr. Machar for he did reject them all, for they have never been negotiated, hence unfair to South Sudanese.

This cements our thesis that IGAD is siding and working for the illegitimate president Kiir and as such has qualified herself not neutral.

Assuming that the given examples are sufficient, we can sum up that IGAD has been sending troops in Ugandan military uniforms to South Sudan in order to fight the rebels alongside Kiir’s militias as well as sending mediation team to Addis Ababa to work very hard in favour of Kiir’s regime.

It implies that IGAD exerts a lot of energy, spends enormous times and lots of dollars, in protection of president Kiir’s stay in power for life. This is the crux or bottom line. Therefore; IGAD is a staunch ally to Salva Kiir in war against Machar, being political or military. It works to achieve dictatorship and life presidency in our Republic. Therefore; it must get changed.

America is never an exception in South Sudan ongoing genocide, so to speak. The truth of fact on this allegation is that Uganda and Egypt are historic and historical allies to US in Africa working in the dictate of US.

These allies are practically fighting Machar’s pro-democracy forces in Kiir’s name to accomplish what I labeled as kiiroproject-the annihilation of other 63 ethnic groups in South Sudan except president Kiir’s Dinka tribe, being supported by US.

This is undeniable fact, which is substantiated by John Kerry’s appalling statement, that US stands by Salva Kiir’s genocidal government for it was elected one, I reworded. The question is, is this government still a legitimate government to US even when it mass-massacred over 20,000 Nuer civilians?

Why did US support, the ousting of then Ukraine president ( wisely questioned by my leader Dr. Machar in one of his encounters with IGAD’s countries leaders) who only Killed 200
Ukrainian civilians?

Is US still harboring the racist cynical attitude of characterizing black people as black things? Are Nuer of South Sudan less than human beings and do not deserve equal rights and equal dignity and treatment though enshrined in the international law?

Do they deserve annihilation even if it is not allowed under humanitarian law in the 21st century? All those questions should be answered by Obama’s administration and the UN chief Ban Ki Moon even though UN is growing more and more weak and near to being characterized a toothless old dog.

In addition to the aforementioned arguments, US’s enslaving and genocidal policies caused them to concede to Kiir’s kiiroproject implementation and as a result made them not to condemn the ongoing genocide presently totaling to over 20,000 civilians.

Rather US is properly seen busy supporting Uganda and Egypt to prolong fighting her proxy war against the democratic movement, (SPLM or SPLA) and to carry on victimizing the peaceful ethnic group, Nuer.

The same reason of allying Kiir’s regime made US too, to say nothing about the use of banned cluster bombs by Kiir & Museveni themselves, on the White Army and Nuer civilians, so to speak.

These realities compel us dear readers, to draw a solid syllogism that America under Obama’s administration is the driving force behind kiiroproject actualization for its hidden agenda, seeing this genocide as necessary evil, politically speaking.

Having read the proceeding arguments, we must logically conclude that America is Kiir’s ally.
It also tracks that Kiir is a project of IGAD and America.

American admirers as me may wonder why this democratic model and IGAD are working in such a seemingly malicious way. Well, first and foremost of all, it has to be crystal clear that IGAD is a machine used by IGAD dictators to protect themselves, from any democrats’ potential overriding-success in democratic elections.

And so, it is well known a club of dictators then. Kiir is a young dictator who deserves protection like the old dictators and like any other dictators in the region, by the club.

This posed a vexed question why should US be an ally to genocidal dictators? The answer is always in the depth of the following saying that even rooted in American pragmatism, written; ‘America always supports a dictatorial regime, which serves her interest than to support a democratic regime that does not serve her interest’.

For dictatorial examples; you have Uganda and Saudi Arabia and the counterexamples be your food for thought.

America’s interest is what seems to have been fulfilled in South Sudan crisis, leave alone her good allies namely Uganda and Egypt had got their lion portions.

It follows that IGAD, US plus their project, Salva Kiir are all liable for the genocide committed on Nuer peoples.

As I have anticipated early, supposing the so-called model of democracy, US had not directed Uganda and Egypt to partake in kiiroproject implementation; the status quo surely, would have not existed in our Republic.

And if the rest of IGAD leaders, excluding Museveni and Kiir and US combined, had also urged Uganda in good faith, giving her a time limit to withdraw her troops from South Sudan, Uganda would have done so and the other foreign troops would have followed the same example, and the ongoing war would have stopped. But the opposite is true as I alluded to somewhere above.

This leads us to say that America’s proved proxy war in South Sudan, which caused her inaction in condemning the current genocide against Nuer people and use of the banned cluster bombs and also Suzan Rice’s unfair arguments to cooperate with genocidal Kiir’s government; all these qualified her (US) part and parcel of Kiir’s life presidency institutionalization in the making. Therefore; America has already chosen at will to be our problem. Albert not expected to do so.
This badly lands us to deduce that America’s stance in the crisis is a grave contradiction to American’s ideals, be them democracy, justice and respect for human rights. For, they cannot be and not be at the same time under the same aspect. This is illogical under the principle of none contradiction, metaphysically speaking.

That implies that America cannot both be democrat and dictator at the same time under the same respect. It is really funny to be such.

Granted that the UN too, is the world body, which is able to stop the crisis, had it opted to do so in order to remain just for all, particularly to South Sudanese and more fashionably to Nuer peoples, it would have prevented the continuation of the genocide, ongoing at its watch.

Alas the UN has shown no interest for a long period of time. To sum up our argumentation with persuasions, we have come to know that what Kiir called failed coup attempt was never true rather than in essence a failed assassination attempt. It is concretized as a truth of fact and reason, logically speaking.

We have proved IGAD plus US, collaborators in Kiir’s life presidency in the making. Not only that the triadic coconspirators, namely US, IGAD and their culprit-project-Kiir are all liable for the premeditated meta-genocide committed against our Nuer Nation. And UN is blameworthy on the same crisis for having chosen to remain a bystander allowing the protraction of human tragedy.

Then, there is no peace to come to our country as long as IGAD remains the mediator. It is almost impossible if not impossible to sign an American-IGAD-Kiir imposed deal cementing the killer Kiir president for life and allowing him to continue with Nuer cleansing.

Never should we accept this nonsensical and absurd deal of coopting us all under the same monster Kiir.

I refuse to believe the persuasion from IGAD and US that Kiir is an angelic mass-murderer as he got consecrated by his grace Paulino Lokudu Loru, the archbishop of the archdiocese of Juba and Deng Bol, the bizarre episcopal principal, both beatifying Kiir Mayardit, the best killer of Nuer people from God, erroneously thought by the two bishops. And that he will continue cleansing Nuer people slowly till Dinka remain alone in the Republic.

Look, “Better be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, or better be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied”. ( J. S. Mill ).

In sincerity, we prefer to coexist peacefully than to miserably exist finishing Nuer people and eventually turning to other ethnic groups to cleanse and finish as the Kiir’s kiiroproject is concerned for the institutionalization of what Al Jah Paul called dinkocracy, Prof. David de Chand characterized kiirocracy and Prof. Taban Lo’long named benyocracy.

This discourse embodies and suggests the change of IGAD from remaining a mediation team in South Sudan peace talks.

It also exposed IGAD and US as the vital impetus behind Kiir’s actions in South Sudan crisis amounting to a meta-genocide of the Nuer people, and labeling UN a blameworthy reluctant giant of conflict moderation.

America has to remain the model of democracy and not contradicting herself, a dictator at the same time as long as we mean to search for true peace.

I remain humble and patriotic, inviting all your criticisms, queries, embellishments and even deductions.

Gatkuoth Lok, is an independent thinker and political analyst as well as one of the critical SPLM-IO members. He can be reached via

Confusion on ‘Government’ & Joke of ‘Equatoria Community’

By: James Okuk, PhD, JUBA, FEB/03/2015, SSN;

I read the agreement by President Kiir and Dr. Riek on “Areas of Agreement on the Establishment of the Transitional Government of National Unity (TGoNU) in the Republic of South Sudan” and its annex on proposed power sharing formula.

Also I read the Conference Resolutions of Equatoria Community presented by its three governors to the IGAD’s Mediators Envoys in Addis Ababa.

1. The agreement could be termed as semi-break-through because IGAD seems to be reaching the tipping point of the dead-end of the whole affair. IGAD warns: Finalize it before it is too late for you or count us out of it if you don’t compromise to reach final peace agreement by
April 2015.

I hope this is a real final call from IGAD before its flight kicks off for good. Arusha got buried in Addis Ababa; requiem mass for it is the only wait!

2. As the principals of war and their negotiators go back to Addis Ababa next three weeks, I would like some clarification on the term ‘Government of the Republic of South Sudan (GRSS).’

There is confusion in the usage of this term, unless the negotiators and mediators have come up with another meaning from what we know from literature of politics.

Who shall be that ‘Government’ when the implementation of any sharing of power is finalized? Will the government be composed of SPLM party’s members at home (e.g., Salva Kiir, Wani Igga, Manase Magok, Joseph Bol, et al)?

Will it be composed of the SPLM party’s members at home in addition to other political parties’ members who are participating in the current Kiir’s government (e.g, Elia Lomuro, Martin Tako, et al)?

In short, will those political parties who are part of the current government (executive) be sharing the proposed 60% for the GRSS so that the proposed (10% or 14% or 20% or whatever
leftover %) share remains reserved for ‘Other Political Parties’ who are not part of the current government? Not only this, but also who shall be called the ‘Government’ after the implementation of the percentages of the shares have been actualized?

Will it be all of those parties’ members participating institutionally in the government from the agreed shares or it shall remain to be referred to those with Kiir?

In my understanding, the power sharing needs to be for the government. It does not make sense but confusions if a government shares power for a government! The use of ‘SPLM-IG’ could make sense in sharing for government positions than the use of term ‘GRSS.’

3. The Equatoria Community is killing political partism in the Republic of South Sudan. Its resolution is an evidence that those who came up with the resolution are not loyal to the SPLM but their own region only.

If governors of every regional community (Equatoria, Upper Nile and Bahr el Ghazal) adopt the same political behavior, I don’t think South Sudan is going to head anywhere politically as far
as governance is concerned.

Perhaps, it would be better we encourage creation of political parties called ‘Equatoria Party,’ ‘Bahr el Ghazal Party’ and ‘Upper Nile Party’ rather than allowing and supporting the scrupulosity of one region.

4. I laughed when I read in the resolution that Equatorians are for Salva Kiir to remain as the President of the Republic but at the same time proposing rotational presidency during the transitional period.

Why rotate Kiir to a lower level if you are sincerely for him at the top post? Why mix courage with cowardice! Equatoria Community is joking. I tend to think so.

Dr. James Okuk is lecturer and public analyst in area of politics. He can be reached at

Is IGAD a mediator or a business dealer?

BY: Yien Lam, South Sudan, FEB/02/2015, SSN;

To me, it is simple as this, an Igad role in kiir’s mess is to do its business at the expense of South Sudanese as its definition does not purport peace mediator than the business developer. This is the main purpose of it.

By the definition, IGAD stands for Intergovernmental authority on development. If that is so as we all know, why does it mediate peace? Judge it by yourself. In basic reality, should the organization as such make peace in south Sudan?

People, this is a jesting. It will never bring peace at all because its interest blindfolds it to totally expunge the root cause of the war and the organization does not want to hear the word “root cause ” because its members are involved in the war with its knowledge. Namely, Kiir and M7.

Due to that, IGAD will never press Uganda to withdraw from the south Sudan territory because it is a part of the deal that the rest of the world does not know for certain.

As you can see the businesses in action, Arusha agreement was seen as positive step by many, now the organization goes back to square one to reinstate kiir as president and Dr.Riek as the Vice president as well as Wani.

The organization avoided the previous parliamentary system that includes prime minister and the president. What does that tell you?

What brought back the very system that killed the people in the first place? Where is the system that involved the prime minister? Should we go back every gathering when we try to negotiate peace? Be the judge!

In this respect, I am always being irritated by the word “elected president.” Referring to kiir. This word should have no meaning of whatsoever if not because of the business being ran in south sudan.

Kiir could not be revered as elected president while he himself killed the people who elected him. What the hell is going on with Igad? Should someone who killed his own people still be entitled elected president or simply should resign?

This is rubbish. What kind of system should that be rather than the business that is being ran by this organization if not more?

However, in my view, IGAD now imposes itself to be the government of south Sudan than being the mediator. When I saw the copy of the imposing document that says two vice presidents in the country in the newly created system.

This triggers a lot in my mind that this organization has entrenched itself deeply into south Sudan as far as saying “the speaker of the parliament will be from Equatoria” in which nobody has the problem with it.

When I read that, I reminded myself with the article that I wrote on December the 5 last year about the IGAD Titled “Is IGAD a trustworthy organization to bring peace in south Sudan or a dealer in question”. This is exactly what I was portended.

Nonetheless, when it comes to the power sharing in south Sudan, it imposed the ratio giving government 60% and opposition 30% and the rest 10%. If this is the real power sharing, why would the government that openly said 70% of its soldiers defected to the rebels in January last year be given 60% of total share?

Folks, Guinea fowl cannot be tamed as seeing you as such. There is no way at all to favor one side than the other if you are legitimate mediator rather than the business dealer.

This won’t be the case at all because kiir lost 70% of his forces that was why he brought in Uganda. If that is so, is IGAD saying 60% will include Uganda in the government of South Sudan or who is going to be given 60% while majority of the people of south Sudan rejected the specious president?

Moreover, not only that, a legitimate mediator has a system of its own to follow. Now it seems that An IGAD that is given an important role as mediator is likely to have obscure system that is guiding it.

It comes with this today and tomorrow changes it to a different one. Which one to believe in? If the organization has no system as it seems to be the case, why would the parties in conflict refer the case to advance level of the AU or UN to solve the problem?

In my view, this should only be the option now because this organization seems not to be a good referee because its rationality is being compromised by the internal business.

Nevertheless, the organization went even further to create 68 additional members of the south suduan parliament. Why does it add that number to the parliament? Is that to accommodate others minorities or what does that mean?

To be frank with this organization, this problem does not need the increase of the parliamentarians. This one will not solve the problem in my view. IGAD can increase the number to whatever it wants. But will not be the solution of the south Sudan problem.

The Only solution to all this mess is to take the killer out of power. Keeping him as the president of whole south Sudan will never bear fruits of any kind. A killer must be ousted by any means possible.

There should be no reason to leave him hanging on with blood on his hands. The IGAD decision to keep him as president could only be done by toddlers not grown up people ever. It may be a first to negotiate peace without finding the cause of it ever in the history of the peace in the world.

If an IGAD wants to apply logic, it could first ask what cause the war? Was it a coup or not? Then investigate it as the neutral body. But it shows not to be as expected by many now.

In essence, one cannot imposed power sharing and whatever case without finding the cause of the problem. Believe me, you could not achieve peace without investigating the cause of the war or anything in that matter. A good mediator does whatever it takes to find the bottom of the case.

In addition, IGAD is being blindfolded by its business than finding the root cause of the problem. A real mediator always finds a common ground for the parties in conflict.

Does IGAD think that keeping kiir as the president will solve the problem without finding what led to the killing of only one ethnic group in the capital of the nation? This will not be case and the business will no longer work in the months to come if not days.

Finally, unprincipled IGAD will never bring peace in south Sudan instead, will add gas into fire in order to gain. Keeping kiir as the president is otherwise a recipe for more catastrophe that needs not to be accepted by people of South Sudan.

The author is Maverick concerned south Sudanese that can be reached by

Arusha resets SPLM for another round of senseless violence

BY: ElHAG PAUL, South Sudan, FEB/02/2015, SSN;

The agreement for the unification of the SPLM signed in Arusha, Tanzania, on 21st January 2015 by the three factions of the SPLM party must not be bought by South Sudanese as a solution for stability in the country. Right from the word go the IGAD leaders believed that for the ragging conflict in the country to come to an end, the SPLM/A needs to be united.

This belief is based on assumptions that the SPLM represents the entire people of South Sudan. How they reached this conclusion nobody knows. IGAD ignored all the facts presented to them by the media and continued to pursue their misguided plan. Please see, ‘IGAD inadequate strategy in South Sudan’ and ‘The solutions to South Sudan’s political problems lies in new blood’

What is clear is that the SPLM represents the interest of a single social group and it is this concrete fact that is responsible for the chaos and fragmentation of the country.

SPLM/A is the cancer of South Sudan and reunifying it and supporting it will just lead to more uncertainty and insecurity as there is today.

The IGAD leaders exerted all their efforts to realise that end. Now they have their agreement. Will it really bring peace and stability to South Sudan? This remains to be seen.

SPLM/A is incompatible with the state of South Sudan. It’s very foundation is anti-South Sudan and because of that it has not visualised itself governing an independent South Sudan.

Its vision looked towards seizing power in Khartoum and configuring the entire Sudan to realise its objective of the so called “New Sudan”.

The very notion of independent South Sudan has always been an anathema to the SPLM/A. To embed this fact, let us revisit the words of this infamous organisation’s late leader Dr John Garang.

In his speech of 3rd March 1984 he boldly and confidently declared, “The Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) has been founded to spear-head armed resistance against Nimeiri’s one-man system dictatorship and to organise the whole Sudanese people under the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), through revolutionary protracted armed struggle waged by the SPLA and political mass support.” (John Garang Speaks, 1987 p19.

The following year, Dr Garang went on to elucidate this position in his speech of 22nd March 1985 (ditto pp 25 -37).

SPLM being broad based movement adapted policies reflecting its main objective. For example, it promoted a wide multi-isms in the social and political space intended to destroy the dominantly imposed Arab culture and identity of the Sudan to realise a ‘New Sudan.’

Theoretically, there was nothing wrong with this policy except that practically South Sudanese had had enough of Arab oppression based on culture and religion and they wanted an out from the Sudan.

As SPLM had been concentrating on its grand objective it failed to develop plan ‘B’ policies for governing South Sudan should it break away. So when the South Sudanese voted for secession SPLM was caught with its pants down.

All of a sudden, it lost its objective as a liberation movement and became a hollow shell. It no longer had a ‘vision and direction’.

The internal report which identified the loss of vision and direction of the organisation in 2013 appears to have failed to pinpoint the real cause of this situation.

Dr Riek opportunistically on 5th March 2013 seized on this finding and nominated himself to the leadership of the organisation in its national executive meeting.

Impatiently and imprudently, he heaped the entire blame of failure on President Salva Kiir while distancing himself from everything that had been going wrong. For example, the massive corruption and lawlessness crippling the country.

It must be remembered that this was the source of the current conflict destroying innocent lives in South Sudan.

Dr Riek all along since 2005 till 23rd July 2013 had been a member of the leadership of SPLM running the country. He bore equal responsibility for the failure of SPLM like President Kiir and the others.

The reality is: the loss of vision and direction of the SPLM is neither President Kiir’s nor Dr Riek’s making. It is the result of a default occurrence emanating from the secession of South Sudan from the Sudan. President Kiir being semi illiterate can be forgiven for failing to foresee this important development.

However, Dr Riek who is highly educated should have identified the vanishing vision with the emerging ideological vacuum in the SPLM.

The supposed apparatchiks of this infamous organisation – Pagan Amum, Dr Anna Itto, Suzanne Jambo and so on who are well educated should have equally identified this very problem and reacted to it.

No one among them asked the simple question in January 2011 after the referendum: Now that South Sudan had decided to go its own way, what would be the vision of SPLM?

The answer to this question would have helped them to think of alternative ways to adapt their party to realities of independent South Sudan.

Unfortunately all of them were asleep and busy plundering the new country of its resources. Please see, ‘Corruption saga: The SPLM five big guns or the quintet squirrels’

It is surprising that all of them latched on to the finding of the SPLM report to advance their own personal interests without examining the root cause: the secession of South Sudan has rendered SPLM irrelevant in the new environment of a new country. It has become like an empty shell abandoned by the snail owner.

Another thing that Dr Garang constructed into the working of SPLM is conflict. Conflict is an important part of SPLM’s life. It is what gives it the ability to constantly rejuvenate itself.

For instance in mid 1980s the SPLM/A targeted the Uduk people of Upper Nile and the Equatorians in the far south of the country to advance its unionist policies as well as its hidden agenda of building Jieng power base in the movement simultaneously.

This argument may sound bizarre but careful examination of it makes proper sense. Since SPLM officially is supposed to liberate the whole Sudan, it needed to be seen to bring all the people of the Sudan together.

However, because SPLM also had a hidden tribal agenda, the two can not go in tandem. Bringing the people together meant that it would be impossible to concretise Jieng tribalism.

The way to go round this obstacle was to institute a policy of divide and conquer. Dr Garang openly boasted of his ability to hit one tribe with the other in the then radio SPLM/A beamed from Ethiopia.

Tribalising the SPLM was not difficult for Dr Garang. The schisms of 1970s and early 1980s between the Jieng and the Equatorians discouraged the majority of South Sudanese tribes from joining the movement.

The Jieng incensed by the decentralisation of South Sudan flocked to the movement in massive numbers with the intention to revenge. As a result Dr Garang filled the entire structure of the movement with the Jieng although there were people from other tribes present who qualified for such positions.

This tribal construction has since become the key generator of conflicts in the organisation.

For instance, in mid 1980s saw SPLM/A target the secessionists, the Nuer and Equatorians; in 1991 saw the SPLM/A targeting the Nuer again; in mid 1990s saw the SPLM/A targeting the Equatorians especially the Didinga and Toposa; in 2004 saw the Jieng fighting among themselves over the governance of the movement; in 2008 saw the SPLM/A targeting the Chollo which resulted in the founding of SPLM-DC and then in December 2013 saw the SPLM/A targeting the Nuer for the third time.

In all these schisms except the 2004 one where President Kiir and the late leader of SPLM/A disagreed over management issues, the rest on surface appear to be wars over the objective of the movement but underneath they also were tribal wars of dominance just like the current ongoing conflict.

Whenever a non-Jieng expresses interest or aspires to challenge for leadership of the movement, the Jieng react violently while lying and rallying the other tribes to hit their target.

It has become a habit of the Jieng to constantly vilify any non Jieng who wants to lead as a traitor. In 2008, in defence of Jieng interest Dr Lam was violently pushed out of the party and labelled as an Arab agent.

These internal wars within the movement and within South Sudan together with the larger war with the Sudan government in Khartoum coupled with the abysmal tribal management of the movement ushered in a culture of violence in the society which awfully has taken root in the psyche of the state of South Sudan.

From the foregoing SPLM/A clearly is a violent tribal organisation that does not represent the people of South Sudan. Its very existence is the fuel of conflicts and divisions in the society.

This is all the reason why it is difficult to understand the reasoning of IGAD and the SPLM supporters in promoting its reunification. Obviously the IGAD countries have a reason and that has to do with their own interest which I will dwell on in a later piece.

Nevertheless, anybody arguing that the reunification of the SPLM will bring peace to South Sudan only exposes their ignorance of the organisation and its dynamics. Such a person knowingly and wilfully promotes the destruction of the country.

If anything, the SPLM/A needs to be disbanded or dismantled by any means available for the sake of survival of the state of South Sudan.

SPLM members of-course would not welcome the contents of this piece. They are busy promoting the unification of the SPLM as the only thing that can bring peace to the country even when the evidence point to the other direction.

For example, the writings of Dr Luka Biong Deng which unethically promotes Dinkocracy and those of Dr Peter Adwok Nyaba which mainly is leftist oriented.

I will not waste time to critique Dr Deng for obvious reasons but it is important to comment on Nyaba’s recent new position if only because he is a true patriot.

Dr Nyaba publicly resigned from this monstrous organisation in June 2013 following its implosion. He unequivocally accepts it is a total failure (organisationally, structurally and ideologically). However, he finds it difficult to admit its slow but sure demise.

In his article ‘Our intellectual journey towards a coherent political ideology’ published by South Sudan Nation on 16th December 2014, he nostalgically argues, “The SPLM remains the only viable political force that united South Sudanese across ethnic and regional fault line. It is therefore the only guarantee against fragmentation of South Sudan.”

This argument is grossly misleading because it seems to stem from a surface analysis and not from an in-depth examination of the realities of the struggle in the then Sudan from 1983 to 2005 and thereafter.

SPLM has since its inception been an exceptionally violent, divisive, chaotic and tribal organisation. The evidence litters Dr Nyaba’s own book: The Politics of Liberation in South Sudan.

The current destruction of the resources of South Sudan including its people which the internationally community calls, “man-made” derive from SPLM’s concept of ‘born to rule.’

The Jieng, the owners and managers of this useless outfit proudly proclaim – the SPLM is the Jieng and Jieng is the SPLM. The two are faces of the same coin.

SPLM benefitted from backlash to local, regional and international Islamic violence. Thus the reason South Sudanese joined the SPLM is not because it was a unifier of the people, but rather because Arab intensive oppression coupled with Islamic extremism and intolerance of the ‘other’ pushed the people of South Sudan to the bosom of SPLM.

Khartoum’s theocratic policies left the people of South Sudan with no option but to flock to the SPLM in pretence in order to survive. In essence what appeared at face value as ‘love’ of SPLM by all the people of South Sudan giving it a false image of a unifier is in fact a ploy for survival.

The true feelings and secessionist aspiration of South Sudanese was later to be proven at the referendum.

Remember SPLM’s objective has firmly been unionist in nature and antagonistically to the aspiration of the South Sudanese people. The late leader of the SPLM Dr John Garang proved the point by persecuting secessionists ruthlessly and crowing loudly that ‘our first bullets were fired against the secessionists.’ Garang violently imposed unionism on South Sudan through the killing of Akot Atem and Samuel Gai Tut.

Nyaba undoubtedly is a formidable intellectual and a gallant fighter. He fought for South Sudan as an SPLA officer losing a leg in the process. His fearsomeness and audacity can not be questioned.

Nyaba, while in Juba, the lion’s den, used his pen to demolish President Kiir’s lie of a coup in December 2013. Please see ‘From Dr Adwok: Sorry Sir, it was not a coup.’

When Nyaba resigned from the SPLM those of us who respected his intellectuality believed he would at last be shading light to the right path for South Sudan. Unfortunately, to our deep disappointment he regressed by rejoining the same hopeless organisation he quit in June 2013.

His current position arguably can be seen as the embodiment of SPLM very pathology. Please see, ‘Arusha agreement briefing: We can’t leave the SPLM party to Salva Kiir’

Now the Arusha agreement intends to unify this monstrous organisation yet again, which will reset it for another round of bloodletting, as soon as a non-Jieng aspires to lead it.

However, even before this happens the agreement itself lays the seed of divisions in the centre of Jieng power. If the SPLM truly unites, the Jieng generals and their militia and the Jieng Council of Elders are likely to find themselves pushed away from the centre of power.

This may lead into internal violent squabbles fracturing the delicate unity of the Jieng.

Another scenario which may be more likely is that the generals may take matters into their own hands by seizing power and handing it to one of the members of JCE.

Whichever option that will transpire will be unacceptable to the people of South Sudan which means the conflict may continue to rage on for the unforeseeable future until the SPLM/A itself due to its violent nature hacks itself down into non existence leading to capture of power by the people.

The only positive thing from Arusha is that the process has exposed the facade of the Jieng system in Juba. It has educated the African leaders and shown light on the true culprits in South Sudan. This is highly welcome.

So, neither SPLM-IG, nor SPLM-IO, nor SPLM-G10, nor SPLM-DC (now excluded from the deal), individually or collectively or united can provide a solution to the country.

They have never had a vision for South Sudan other than theft, corruption, killings, tribalism and chaos.

What is needed is a new group with a new vision and humane values driven by the concepts of ‘common purpose’ and ‘common good’.
[Truth hurts but it is also liberating]

Elhag Paul

Revolutionary Movement for National Salvation (REMNASA) – New rebel group formed in South Sudan

Press Statement on Launch of REMNASA, 28/1/2015, SSN;

The forces of Revolutionary Movement for National Salvation (REMNASA) on 27/1/2015 launched a successful attack on the sectarian regime security forces in Maridi killing 6 soldiers and wounding many others. They captured arms and ammunition. This attack marks the official launch of second liberation struggle under REMNASA with the aim to dislodge the murderous regime of Dictator Salvatore Kiir in Juba.

It should be recalled that this group rebelled from the South Sudan Army on 9/1/2015 and on 19/1/2015 attacked the SPLA production unit at Mankakara 2 which is located 8 KM from Maridi two nom Maridi-Rumbek road.

REMNASA was formed by SPLA Officers who have been affected by the poor governance and failed leadership in the country. The failure of the SPLM leadership in South Sudan precipitated the crisis in South Sudan which has lead to loss of thousands of lives, rape, human right abuses and crime against humanity.

The crisis has completely destroyed the social fabric of our people. And for that matter the two protagonists can in no way possible be able to reconcile the people and restore genuine peace even if they are to reach peace agreement now.

It appears the IGAD led peace talk is mainly focusing on sharing of positions and unification of the SPLM factions.

Furthermore so many stakeholders inside the country have been excluded from participating in finding solutions to the current crisis.

As such the ongoing IGAD mediation has been turn into solving SPLM problems while neglecting the fundamentals issues that resulted into the current civil war such as poor governance, tribalism, nepotism, dictatorship, lack of inclusiveness, human right abuses, intolerance, corruption, elitism and lack development.

Therefore the current conflict should have been viewed as a national crisis and unless all the various actors in the political landscape in South Sudan are involved, we in REMNASA believe no sustainable peace will be restored in the country.

Hence any peace agreement resulting from non-inclusive process will not resolve the current conflict in the country.

…. mindful that lack of comprehensive peace agreement that involves all 64 Nationalists shall further result into more chaos and total disintegration of the country;
…. acknowledging the deep division between the two antagonistic tribes that has resulted into continuous struggle for power among them;
…. aware of the fact that the regime of Salva Kiir has failed to develop and implement the much needed reforms that could have save the country from the ongoing meaningless war;
…. deeply touched by the suffering of the people and their desperate need for humanitarian assistance and the necessity to salvage the country from complete disintegration;
…. We the officers from the Sudan People’s Liberation Army together with our people who voted for the independence with the hope of having a country where federalism, Equality, Justice, Diversity, Peaceful co-existence and Prosperity prevails do hereby resolve to launch a Revolutionary Movement called the Movement for National Salvation of the people of South Sudan to dislodge the current illegitimate and sectarian regime of Dictator Salvatore Kiir Mayardit, the President of South Sudan.

The leadership of the people’s Movement will aspire to restore the squandered liberation aspirations of the people and guide the revolution through a new unifying vision to secure an equal, free and prosperous Democratic Federal Republic of South Sudan.

Major Losuba Lodoru
Commander of REMNASA Forces
South Sudan.

Who is waiting for who —- Arusha Agreement or Addis Ababa Agreement!

By: Justin Ambago Ramba, U.K., JAN/25/2015, SSN;

Let the obvious not be twisted to mean another thing. It is a known fact that the reason SPLM/SPLA is now a fractured movement and Army respectively is because of an internal power struggle. This much is well known to all, although of course lately there are voices trying to make it sound otherwise.

On the other hand people also know that South Sudan is now at war with itself because the SPLM/SPLA leadership decided to take its internal power struggle into residential areas in Juba, other towns and villages claiming over 100,000 innocent lives.

All those murdered men, women, children in this crazy war were people who would have otherwise gone on with their lives in a normal way even if the SPLM were to completely vanish from the political scene given its rotten records or corruption, impunity, embezzlement ………etc.

Arusha unification Agreement is only one of the many fake resorts the fractured SPLM will knowingly use to give the world audience a false impression about its own inborn contradictions.

Many SPLM members and the leadership alike have for a long time received contradicting indoctrinations throughout the history of this party to the extent that there are no more existing a single interpretation to any of its declared mission statements and programmes.

The SPLM/SPLA veterans seem to be convinced that they have to loot the country dry before they can pass the leadership to its second tier cadres. For I am aware that many brilliant young people are being held hostages inside this slowly decaying SPLM/SPLA political party.

They [young SPLM/SPLA members] can either choose to rid South Sudan of this menace and take over leadership of SPLM/SPLA and transform it into a purely political party without any military off-shots or they equally risk rotting and sinking in the inevitably sinking SPLM/SPLA militaristic political party.

When the Arusha Agreement was signed, it was signed not to be implemented until certain conditions (albeit undeclared) are achieved. For SPLM-In-Opposition, that condition is to see President Salva Kiir step down from the SPLM Chairmanship and never runs for presidency again.

SPLM-in-Juba too, is not without an undeclared condition of its own for the implementation of the Arusha Deal. It hopes that the opposition endorses Salva Kiir as the chairperson of the reunified SPLM party minus/plus other things.

These two contradicting positions are equally known to the public. So who is fooling who?

Back to Addis Ababa where things were left unsealed awaiting the outcome of the various consultations held by the warring factions and their grassroots.

“You can take a horse to the river, but you can’t force it to drink”, a simple but important idiom for both IGAD and the Troika as they go around trying to impose a settlement in what is already a complex situation even by South Sudanese’s own standards!

Dr Justin Ambago Ramba. Member of the Political Parties Delegation to the IGAD mediated Peace Settlement for South Sudan and a voice for the voice millions.

2015 Elections: The Legal Facts, Political Fictions & Democratic Fantasies

BY: JUMA Mabor MARIAL, JUBA, JAN/08/2015, SSN;

In the recent weeks, a vigorous debate has been had on the 2015 elections in South Sudan and the debate is on-going. The Elections Commission, an institution sanctioned by the law to carry out this task has made it abundantly clear that the election will take place. Political parties and other political actors have also shared their thoughts on whether there should be elections in 2015 or not.

Nonetheless, whichever views are put forward, I have reasons to believe that most of these commentators are wearing political camouflage and metal head gears.

It is within this context that a professional and neutral opinion is needed to set the rules on this debate straight and I wish to lead in this discourse not with political or other spectacles but with transparent eyeglasses as someone who is not just posting an opinion but a person who is giving an analytical view on whether there should be elections in 2015 or otherwise. I wish to do this in the following sub-headings.

The Facts and Legal Framework
Article 100 (1) of the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011, stipulates that; ‘the tenure of the office of the President of the Republic of South Sudan shall be five years’ and sub-article (2) of the same article states that; ‘notwithstanding article (1) above, during the transitional period the term of the President shall be four years beginning from July 9, 2011.’

This article should be read and interpreted along with Article 66 (1) of the Transitional Constitution, 2011 which states that, ‘the term of the National Legislature shall be five years and sub-section (2) states that notwithstanding article (1) above, the term of the current National Legislature shall be four years from July 9, 2011.

What these articles tell us is that the term for both the Executive and Legislature runs and ends concurrently. It also means that both their mandates end on July 9, 2015.

Article 26 of the Transitional Constitution talks about the rights of the citizens to participate in elections and it states that, ‘every citizen shall have the right to take part in any level of government directly or through freely chosen representative, and shall have the right to nominate himself or herself or be nominated for a public post or office in accordance with this constitution and the law.’

It added that, ‘every citizen shall have the right to vote or be elected in accordance with this constitution and the law.’ Whether the spirit of this article can be achieved in the proposed elections is a topic of debate as we move along this article.

The South Sudan Elections Act, 2012 talks generally about the procedures to be used in approaching elections. The act deals with issues of registration of candidates, screening and creating polling centers. The list is long on the ethics and guidelines through which the Commission is supposed to conduct elections but above all, the Commission is tasked with conducting free, fair, transparent, democratic and peaceful elections.

It is in regard of the above articles that concentrated debate on the elections is provoked because, typically, the elections as per the above provisions should take place in June 2015 while a new democratically elected government is expected to be sworn in and take over office by July 9, 2015.

This is also the basic reason why most of the proponents of elections talk about the legitimacy of the government and the necessity for holding elections in 2015.

Customarily, most countries carry out their general elections after every four or five years, examples in this case are Kenya, USA, and Uganda. Rwanda holds its Presidential and Parliamentary elections after every seven years. This is just but an illustration of systematic renewable of political mandate within the region and beyond but the issue here is what happened in case the elections do not take place within the constitutionally stipulated time?

This question looks first at the circumstances under which the delay in elections come in and then, legal measures are taken to address what is likely to amount to constitutional crisis and power vacuum.

For instance, Kenya after the promulgation of its constitution in August 2010 had stipulated that its general elections under a new constitutional dispensation shall take place in August 2012; unfortunately, this didn’t happen largely due to a number of reforms agenda that were supposed to be carried out including establishing an independent Judiciary before the elections.

The Kenyan Parliament (now Defunct) felt that it was necessary to extend the term of the incumbent government for at least five months in order to create time and establish the institutional reforms needed, this wasn’t done by decrees but through amending the provisions that deals with elections in the constitution. Ultimately, Kenya held it elections successfully in March 2013.

Several models of postponed elections on numerous circumstances are in abundance and this leads me to the next question; Is South Sudan general election, in fact its first general election after her independence faced with the circumstances as experienced by other countries?

This question can be answered in the next sub-heading if I were to answer it adequately.

Political Fictions
South Sudan has been engulfed in conflict with itself for over a year now and consequent of this conflict, it democratic rating, economic strengths, the unity of its people, social and political fabrics have been highly obstructed.

Such factors do not provide not only room for elections but also poison the environment for any significant and meaningful elections to take place legitimacy of the government notwithstanding. This is just a hypothesis as I am yet to draw my conclusions at the end of this article.

But before I reach there, we must quickly answer the question as to whether the circumstances that our country are in now allows for elections to take place. The first answer would be NO on many grounds.

One, there is insecurity across the country and carrying out elections in such an environment would not allow the citizens to freely exercise their democratic rights and vote for whoever they want as there would be fears all over.

Secondly, elections need funds and throughout the world, no single country can afford to fund its own elections, international funding is needed to help in conducting successful elections and in the absence of this support as that is the likely probability, contemplating to fund elections single handedly is an economic suicide.

Thirdly, in each election, at least two or more political parties must contest and as things stands now, almost all the political parties except SPLM mainstream are against any holding of the elections and this therefore means, if the elections were to take place as advocated for by some actors, it would mean SPLM contesting against itself.

Fourthly, doing elections in 2015 is an official declaration of subsequent instability in the country as those who may lose will have no choice but to go Athor-Yau Yau’s direction. Unfortunately, their retreat will not be independent as was that of Athor and YauYau but will immediately lean towards joining the other side against the government.

Fifthly, elections are about asking people to freely select those they think can represent them efficiently and deliver service to them effectively. The 2015 elections will not do that because anyone who does not vote for a candidate especially if such a candidate comes from SPLM will be branded as from the other side, this therefore means that, there will be a lot of intimidation, coercion and other irregularities than what had happened in 2010.

The 2015 elections if it is allowed to happen shall be a replica of what happened in Uganda in 2012 elections when the incumbent Ugandan President sent his troops to the streets across the country to ensure that all the votes are tailored in his favour.

Lastly, the time is so limited if the Chairperson of the election Commission said that the elections are scheduled to take place on June 30, 2015. Voter registration needs up to three good months, primaries by political parties need at least two or so months and many other pre-election arrangements have to be put in place including the security set up for any meaningful elections to take place.

All these are underlying challenges that should not be overlooked because ideally, no country can risk going for elections with these long list of challenges. But…

The question of legitimacy of the government comes in here; the proponents of 2015 elections are quoting precedents from countries like Syria and Libya as countries that did their elections during the crises. Yes, it is true but again, how legitimate was their legitimacy?

The question of legitimacy should not only be looked at as stipulated in the constitution, there are other thresholds that should be considered in addition to the constitutional provisions on legitimacy and some of these prerequisites include but not limited to;

Will the region and international community recognize the legitimacy of the government elected? Are the citizens or electorates happy and will they recognize the government and the process?

Is the environment in which the elections are being conducted free and fair to the extent that all electorates shall have the freedom to choose who they wish should represent them in the government plus, would there have been any other better alternatives in which the tenure of the executive and legislature legitimized than venturing into elections that would be a pandora box?

All such questions are what should be considered and addressed before any country could talk about going for elections.

Yes, the government may use the elections as the means to put pressure on the rebels to concede to its position in the peace-talks but is this a long term solution to the crises in South Sudan, the government may too be assuming and maybe telling the international community that, despite the crises, the country is still on track and has its plans on course.

Maybe yes, maybe not, but altogether, it should be applauded that the proponents on the government side are now finding it necessary to implement the constitution at some point.

The unfortunate thing is that, since the adoption of the Transitional constitution five years ago, it has occurred on several occasions that the constitution has been implemented selectively and this is manifested on article 101 (s) and (r) regarding the removal and elections of governors.

Nevertheless, the insistence on elections in June 2015 is all a political game that is being qualified by constitutional provisions. It is to some extent a political fiction intended to reaffirm legitimacy and disregard all the consequences that comes with it.

Democratic Fantasies
I named the calls for elections in 2015 in South Sudan “Democratic Fantasy’ because the object for holding elections every five or four years throughout the world is always to allow people exercise their democratic rights and choose people that they think will represent them well in the government.

It is always a social theory contract between the people and the ones that they are giving five or so years to govern them.

But in this case, 2015 elections may not be that kind of theory because, people maybe forced to vote for those they don’t want or are tied with or there could as well be voter apathy since most people may feel that the elections are not carried out not because the government want to renew its vows and political ideologies to the people but it is only doing elections because its legitimacy is in jeopardy.

It means that, after the reaffirmation of legitimacy, it will be business as usual. The fact that other countries like Syria carried out their regular elections despite the crises is not a successful precedent that can be emulated if there are alternatives for extension of the lifetime of the incumbent Executive and Legislature.

Using my transparent spectacles in this debate, I wish to give the stakeholders that are engaged and involved in the elections debate the following recommendations;

1. The government especially the SPLM should use it parliamentary majority in the Legislature to amend articles 66 and 100 of the Transitional Constitution 2011 to extend the life of the current Executive and Legislature for at least two or three years. The amendment bill should be based on the above mentioned challenges while precisely; it should be used to give ample time for the on-going peace talks to come to their logical conclusion.

2. The rebels if they intend to do reforms in this country as they usually claim must not cheat themselves that delaying to sign peace agreement with the hopes to declare the government illegitimate when July 9, 2015 comes are misplaced calculations because this wishful thoughts are taken care of by recommendation number one there above. The best these people can do is to engage the government to sign peace and then come and follow up on the reform agenda that they are so much advocating for. The prerequisite for this will be the formation of the Transitional Government of National Unity which will automatically render the debate on elections obsolete.

3. The regional and international community if they want South Sudan to be peaceful and develop democratically must do two things, one, they must take away all the strings that they have attached to the peace talks in Addis Ababa and speed up the process of facilitating and honestly pressurizing the warring parties to sign the peace agreement.

Secondly, they must convince the rebels and government that strategies and conspiracies to provoke elections to take place and render it null and void or forcing it to happen are not going to help the people of South Sudan in both their peaceful co-existence and democratic prospects. The rebels will swallow it bitter if the elections take place and the government gets another five years mandate.

4. The elections Commission instead of now playing a complacent role of telling people that there should be elections on July 9, 2015 should be a professional and neutral body that advises on what should be the best alternative in the circumstances like what the country is in now.

The election Commission is not a government employee or parastatal to the extent that, if the government says there will be elections or no elections, then it follows suit. It must have its own independent opinion on whether or not there should be elections or otherwise. All in all, the Commission has been unable to conduct by-elections in the four states that the governors were sacked on excuses of having no money, where would it now get the whooping 1.5 billion required to conduct country-wide elections. I think some reasoning is needed here.

5. The proponents of elections must look beyond legitimacy question, there is more to elections than just reaffirmation of positions because as this is achieved, the issues of democracy, trust, confidence and even the absolute legitimacy itself would have been thrown out of the window because meeting an electoral date is just one thing but nurturing nascent democracy like ours is another because after all, There are alternatives to renewing the legitimacy of the current government as articulately stated in recommendation one above.

Legally speaking, elections can take place in accordance with the provisions of the Transitional Constitution of South Sudan, 2011 but alternatively, the challenges as navigated through there above can be considered if the unity, peace, stability and democratic future of South Sudan and its people is used as a recipe to determine its future affairs.

I am against the holding of elections in 2015 not because I am speaking for anyone but it is because I feel that, elections in the circumstances our country is in now would be largely an exercise in futility.

Juma Mabor Marial
Trainee Advocate, Juba

An Open Letter to Pres. Kiir Mayardit: You’re the worst president ever

BY: Kuir ë Garang, CANADA, JAN/03/2015, SSN;

Leaders the world over think about two paramount things: the PRIMACY of the citizens’ needs and the LEGACY they leave behind long after they have gone. It seems, Mr. President, you think less about the two mentioned above and more about staying in power.

There is one thing you have to remember as you stay on: Time will come when you’ll be gone either by political necessity or by biological and physiological necessity.

Power ends, but your legacy will not end regardless of what it is. You might go down in history as the first and the worst president South Sudan will ever have; or you can change course and be the best leader South Sudanese will remember for generations to come. The onus is on you!

Here are some things to consider as we begin the New Year.

You are the President: The only person who has the ultimate say in what happens in South Sudan is you. Sometimes your speeches and interviews don’t reflect that.

When asked once by a journalist when peace would be realized in South Sudan, you asked the journalist to ‘go and ask Riek Machar.’ That was both ‘unpresidential’ and irresponsible.

You were mandated with confidence by South Sudanese in order to do things for them and in order to show optimistic way forward.

Riek Machar is a man who’s shown time and again that he wants to lead South Sudan. That we understand very well. However, he’s not the president of South Sudan.

You claim legitimacy but you fall short of portraying that. It’s time you remembered that you are the president of South Sudan so act like it.

Professing being the president is not what presidency is about; you have to act in the interest of the people.

Stop talking and acting as if there’s someone else; someone who’s actually the decision maker in South Sudan!

As the president, you need to account for the atrocities committed by people under your command. Riek Machar will account for his own atrocities.

As president of South Sudan, who still has Nuer leaders in your government, what would you tell millions of Nuer, who lost their loved ones in December of 2013?

You are the president so answer them like a president!

The Peace Talks
Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was made possible because there was a will to bring peace and the understanding that Sudanese had had enough of war. Taha and Garang, in the interest of Sudanese people, took charge of the talks, showed courageous leadership and made very painful concessions.

You are very much aware that Seyoum Mesfin and IGAD have failed miserably. Unless you take initiative or take charge of these talks, the very people who gave you the mandate will continue to die of diseases, hunger and war.

Dr. John Garang has left his legacy in a very beautiful manner. It’s high time you make peace your legacy because developing South Sudan will NEVER be part of your legacy.

Stop the PRIDE and POWER game you and Riek Machar are playing and humble yourself in order to bring PEACE to your people.

Listen to the Citizens
It’s very easy for leaders to be out of touch with people and their needs. And being an African leader, people around you usually lie to you to win favors and be seen as the most loyal.

Make an effort to be in touch with South Sudanese citizens without any mediators. This could be in form of well-organized town hall meetings or a monthly radio show in which citizens can call in from rural areas and express their concerns directly to you.

In this way, you’ll have a chance to gauge what your aides tell you and what the average citizen’s experiences are.

Media Freedom and Political Opposition
South Sudan is doing exactly what Sudan was/is doing. Your administration is doing the same thing you took up arms to fight. I don’t know whether you don’t see it or you just don’t care.

Newspapers are censored if they criticize your administration, political opponents are intimidated, arrested or killed and you rule through a decree like dictators do.

These are not part of democracy you seem to sing on regular basis. You’re doing exactly what the likes of Nimeiri, Abboud and Beshir did. It’s high time you make South Sudan different from Sudan.

Political opposition and the Media are a mirror through which you can evaluate your performance.

Allow people to criticize your administration and then answer them with facts about what you’ve done for South Sudanese. Intimidating journalists and opposition figures gives an impression you’ve failed to deliver.

Let different political parties debate openly on South Sudan Television. Get your best political brains to tell South Sudanese your side of the story in open televised debates. This will garner you more respect than the way opposition figures are intimidated now.

What you have to request through relevant ministries is journalistic integrity. Journalists who violate their codes of ethics shouldn’t be arrested by security personnel. They should have charges filed by government lawyers and it’s up to the judge to decide.

The word decree appears only once in the South Sudanese Transitional Constitution. And it’s only something to do with failure by parliament to pass the budget bill within 45 days: 88 (7).

So where does ruling by decrees get constitutional legitimacy? Dictatorial leaders rule by decrees because they override their constitutions or don’t care about it.

Whoever advised you to rule by these unconstitutional decrees is contributing towards your unpalatable legacy. It would have been better if these decrees where constitutionally mandated.

Building a nonpartisan Civil Service
No country that hopes to prosper can walk even a mile without a functioning civil service.
There has to be nonpartisan civil service that should remain in place regardless of what party is in power.

Civil Servants shouldn’t be loyal to any political party. The main purpose is to make a given ministry streamlined and functional.

In South Sudan now, the minister is everything. And when the minister is removed, there’s hardly anything that remains to tell the next minister what to do. If you hope to do anything in South Sudan without a nonpartisan civil service then you are living in a delusional limitless dimension.

Ask seasoned experts in neighboring countries, or even in the ‘west’, on how to build and strengthen a civil service sector in South Sudan. Records in any ministry should remain for future records even when the minister is gone. How do you expect to develop a country when the minister goes with records of that given ministry?

President Museveni and Uganda People’s Defense Force
No right-minded South Sudanese would dismiss the role Uganda played during the liberation struggle. Museveni and UPDF have helped us a great deal.

However, Museveni is a political and diplomatic brother and everything he does for us is primarily in the best interest of Uganda and Museveni’s political ambition. Museveni’s help to South Sudanese wasn’t and isn’t offered pro bono.

And we also know that without UPDF, the ‘White Army’ would have probably gone to Juba and this could have caused a bloodbath. But as you are well aware, Museveni’s help to us during the liberation struggle was a function of Beshir’s backing of Lord Resistance Army (LRA).

And his current help is an attempt to keep Sudanese president Omar el Beshir away from South Sudan and to project himself as Eastern African ‘strong man.’

The gravest part of UPDF presence in South Sudan is that it portrays you as an impotent president whose army can’t protect the capital and the government.

Museveni tells the world that he’ll only withdraw from South Sudan if Juba is secure. This tells South Sudanese and the world one thing: you are incapable of protecting your capital city and that you are president only because UPDF is protecting you.

That doesn’t sound like a situation of a strong president. It doesn’t matter what you say about your military strength, UPDF presence and actions have portrayed you as weak, incompetent and someone whose presidency they have protected. That undermines South Sudan as a nation!

So wake up Mr. President and listen to your people, allow free media and free political opposition, build real civil service, bring peace to South Sudan and create respectable South Sudan’s army instead of the current medley of tribal militias that make up the SPLA.

Kuir ë Garang

Our intellectual journey towards a coherent political ideology

BY: Peter Adwok Nyaba PhD, KENYA, DEC/30/2014, 2014, SSN;


Dr. Lual Deng, in his rejoinder to my response to Mr. Abraham Lueth’s piece in reference to revocation of South Sudan membership in AGOA while cautioning Dr. James Okuk and me to focus the debate on the issues facing our country, introduced an important concept of ‘our intellectual journey towards coherent political ideals.’ I preferred to reword this conceptual construct as ‘intellectual journey towards a coherent political ideology,’ However, while retaining its structure I believe its important constituent concepts should be ‘liberation’, ‘state’ and ‘society’ put in a reverse order to place the discourse in its South Sudan historical context.

Many South Sudanese researchers and writers have published books, in referral journals and newspapers on the social and political configuration of South Sudan with little or no policy impact in the sociology and political economy of the country. The dominant political remains impervious to the oral and published critique. The rate at which our young republic of South Sudan is sliding back into prehistory is alarming. This is a modest contribution to the discourse on the inordinately huge challenges facing the people of South Sudan as they construct their state and build their nation.

The research we conducted in the context of ‘the House of Nationalities’ [Nyaba, 2000] revealed that sixty seven nationalities in their variegated demographic weight differentials, with the Dinka and Makaraka being the single largest and smallest nationalities respectively, populate South Sudan. This fact is important to note, given that these nationalities constitute the building blocks of the South Sudan nation. Indeed the concepts of inclusivity and visibility of each nationality in the national liberation process drove the idea of the house of nationalities in the context of unity in diversity.

Having said that, I want now to problematize the issues that face our young republic of South Sudan along the concepts of ‘society’, ‘state’ and ‘liberation’ in this order. In this exercise, I hope my tools for analysis and synthesis will not fail me. My theoretical foundation of this discourse grounds in Marxist analysis of history that state is a superstructure of society. That is to say, society predates the emergence of state as a social construct. The Sudanese state and for that matter South Sudan as a state is an extension of Westphalian state model transmitted to us through the agency of colonialism in the nineteen century.

Colonialism and colonial rule distorted, indeed interrupted and froze at a primoval stages what would have been the autochthonous development of Sudanese nationalities. While the colonial administration united them in one country nevertheless it instituted the policy of ‘divide and rule’ to segregate, weaken their resistance and prevent solidarity among them. The ‘Closed Districts Ordinance’ was intended to insulate the people of Southern Sudan, the Nuba and Funj from modernizing ideas and ideologies. The colonial administration tasked the Christian Missionaries with the job of block and blunting the social and political consciousness of their converts. Paradoxically the Church inadvertently produced such radical clergy as Fr. Saturnino Lohure..


Except in certain cases where slavery and disease decimated their population, the nationalities that inhabit South Sudan have remained for nearly three hundred years unaffected by industrialization, communication and information technology. Their mode means and relations of production have unchanged over the last two hundred years since the Turco-Egyptian occupation of Sudan [1821 -1885]. There has been extensive social segmentation and migration due to internal or external wars, disease and depletion of resources resulting in differentiation and emergence of subnational groups in adjacent or distant locations. Consequent to separate and sometimes isolated existence some of these subnational groups developed different dialects, traditions and customs.

This phenomenon pronounces more among the Dinka [found in Bahr el Ghazal, Upper Nile and Kordofan], Nuer [found in Upper Nile and western Ethiopian], Moro [found Equatoria and West Nile in Uganda], the Ateker group [South Sudan, Southwest Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda] and the Murle group [found in Upper Nile, Equatoria and Kenya]. The most characteristic feature of this phenomenon, which anthropologists described as ‘ethnic federation’, is the absence of centralized authority and with it the concept of state.

This contrasts development with the segmentation and migration of the Luo [found in Bahr el Ghazal, Upper Nile, Western Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and DR Congo], who wherever they settled established some form of centralized authority in the person of the ‘Nyie’ [Anywaa], Reth [Chollo], Ruot [Acholi, Luo (Jur Chol), Luo (Kenya)] representing a primordial state. The Azande [found in South Sudan, DR Congo and Central African Republic] established a state, which the French and the British destroyed consequent to the cooperation between Gbudwe and the Mahdist state. The key point in this theoretical configuration is, whether in acephalous or cephalous societies (where centralized authority has evolved) that society and state remain undifferentiated and power not emancipated (through institutionalization) from the person wielding and exercising it.

On the political economy plane, the mode of social production ranges from gathering, hunting/fishing to subsistence agriculture in crop production and traditional animal husbandry. The relations of production remains communal which also defines the social identity and all that goes with it. The community dominates and defines the individual’s attitudes, perceptions and preferences. The individual remains hostage to the society s/he hails from, which also expects he/r to respond according to its concerns, interests and aspirations. This plays out negatively where the individual holding public office behaves according and responds to society’s expectation in respect of public property. This resulted, more often than not, in abuse of office, corruption, nepotism and similar mal-administrative practices. When you find government, ministry or department, populated by the ethnic community from the top person to junior then you know what I mean.

Although a successor state from the Sudan following independence on July 9, 2011, state formation in South Sudan is at its rudimentary stage precisely because of the development of society and other contributing factors linked o colonialism. The Turco-Egyptian (1821-1885), the Mahdiya (1885 -1898) and the Anglo-Egyptian (1899 -1956) states in the Sudan were brutal, extractive, exploitative and oppressive that linked the Sudan to the world capital system of exploitation. This prompted massive resistance on the part of the people in different parts of the country. The state expanded establishing finally its 1917 international borders at the expense and subjugation of the various kingdoms and nationalities.

The struggle for liberty, freedom and human dignity that characterized the resistance of the people of South Sudan did not end with colonial pacification. It continued after independence of Sudan on January 1st, 1956 against the national governments. In order to achieve independent statehood and international recognition the people of South Sudan had to fight two wars. The two wars and the culture of armed resistance to political exclusion, domination and oppression meant that South Sudan had to forfeit socio-economic development of its human and huge natural resources.

The underdevelopment of the natural resources of South Sudan registers in the low level of social awareness and political consciousness of its people. Social awareness and political consciousness reflected in the culture of political organization and action are a function of socio-economic development. Industrialized parts of the Sudan [Khartoum and Gezira] demonstrate high level of social awareness and political consciousness compared to the less developed parts. In South Sudan, the wars and culture of resistance operated to block potentialities for social and economic development while at the same time unlocking the potentials for violence and war.

This explains why it is easy to mobilise South Sudanese for war than for passive political resistance characteristic of urban proletariat and lumpens in North Sudan. The struggle for social and economic rights in the cities and towns in northern Sudan translate into political struggle resulting in change oppressive regimes e.g. in 1964 and 1985 popular uprisings. It is worth noting that the civil wars fought in southern Sudan created conditions for the success of the two respective popular uprisings.


The concept of liberation links up with the struggle against oppressive reality, which submerges people’s consciousness. As a process liberation obtains in the context of conscientisation, whereby people conceive and change reality consequent to praxis – reflection and action [Paulo Fererri, 1974]. Thus transforming an oppressive reality essentially means liberating the oppressed and the oppressor. In this context, liberation must occur initially at the personal level before it works to produce a counter society emerged from oppression. In 1983, Dr. John Garang de Mabior deserted his post in the Sudan Armed Forces to establish and lead the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army [SPLM/SPLA] to wage the ‘revolutionary’ war of national liberation. The SPLM/SPLA, a section of the national democratic revolution, emerged from South Sudan, which due to its underdevelopment constituted the weakest link in the Sudanese state system and an unlikely spot for revolution .

The ‘society’, ‘state’ and ‘liberation’ linkages played out in a contradiction that produced the current social and political environment in South Sudan, which justifies the notion that revolution leading to social change or transformation can only spearheaded by a conscientious organized working class armed with a political ideology for this transformation. South Sudan consequent to its underdevelopment had no organized working class. The onus of liberation therefore fell on what Amilcar Cabral termed ‘bourgeois petit’ the literate section of society whose dominance in the state and society accrue not from social production of economic wealth but from letters.

According to Cabral, for the petty bourgeois to transform a socially and economically underdeveloped society as obtaining in South Sudan it must commit class suicide to resurrect in the guise of revolutionary intellectuals closely allied in solidarity with the masses of the people. The war of national liberation the SPLM/SPLA spearheaded instead produced a military elite – the SPLA generals, who due to lack of political ideology of transforming society, emerged completely detached from the masses of the people. The clutch slipped and the wheel turned full circle to the starting point of social domination and oppression.

South Sudan is in a state of civil war. Its people have never been as fragmented as today along ethnic and regional fault lines in a manner that jeopardizes its sovereignty and independence. The war quickly eroded the social capital that bounded the people for decades if not centuries enabling them to resist their common enemies. The state in South Sudan is at risk of failing and total collapse. The writings on the wall suggest that UN Security Council or IGAD Regional intervention is imminent. Several factors conspired to construct this socio-political architecture.

The SPLM/SPLA lacked political ideology

As mentioned above the SPLM/SPLA emerged from the backward parts of Sudan characterized by shallow culture of social and political organization. It was a military rather than political insurrection. The failure to evolve a political ideology reflecting the objective reality obtaining in the country and the aspiration of the people condemned the SPLM/SPLA to militarization of society and militarism as its modis operandis rather than political organization for military action. The subculture of militarism eclipsed the political message and character of the SPLM/SPLA pushing to the background the liberation process of conscientisation and transforming the oppressive reality through praxis. The SPLM/SPLA therefore became a militarist machine conditioned by military doctrine and routine that produced and promoted a cult of personality and a subculture that emphasized hierarchical rather than horizontal or comradely relations in the ranks and file as well as between the combatants and civil population among whom they operated. The execution of military action outside its political and ideological context generated serious contradictions within the SPLM/SPLA ranks.

The SPLM/SPLA shunt political education and organization

The conventionalization of the guerrilla war, consequent to availability and external access to abundant military logistics, accelerated the pace of war [Nyaba, 1997]. This deprived the SPLM/SPLA of the opportunity to undertake political mobilisation, education and organization. It is not feasible to conceive of social transformation of an oppressive reality without political education and organization. Political enlightenment and education is necessary for attitudinal change to enable correction perception of the oppressive reality, which submerges the people. Organization is a necessary tool for uniting the people for action.

The absence of political education and organization inadvertently forced the complete and absolute reliance on military discipline leading to alienation of the masses of the people. The SPLM/SPLA interaction with the civil population in essence appeared like liberating the people with the tools of domestication. It produced and passive, rather than active, mass not involved in their own liberation. The condescending attitude of many SPLA combatants that ‘we liberated you’ smacks of this militarist arrogance.

Without change of attitudes, because of political education, it was not possible to disseminate and inculcate in the masses of the people the ideas and principles of social justice, equality, freedom and democracy without which we cannot envisage liberation. Therefore social awareness and political consciousness of the masses fossilized at the primoval level of society.

The SPLM/SPLA leadership disdained institutions and democratic structures

As a corollary of shunning political education and organization was the SPLM/SPLA’s disdain of institutions and structure in the SPLM. That explains why the SPLM produced its draft constitution only in 2008 exactly twenty-five years after the launch of the SPLM/SPLA and the publication of the SPLM Manifesto in July 1983. The resistance to construction of institutions and structures in the SPLM corresponded to the certain logic of absolute power whereby the leader did everything from reflective thinking and conceptualization to the distribution of material goods military or otherwise.

This led to marginalization and exclusion of colleagues in decision-making process of the SPLM generating contradictions within the SPLM/SPLA leadership leading to factionalisation and splinterism. Dr. Lam Akol’s clandestine paper “Why Garang must go now” (1990) came in this context. The refusal to construct institutions that defined the roles and responsibilities in the SPLM/SPLA eventually led to the Nasir Declaration [August 1991] and precipitated the split with the SPLM/SPLA.

The absence of political structures, rules and procedures to resolve the internal contradictions meant that no avenues existed in the movement for venting the excessive internal pressures the leadership contradictions generated. This condemned the SPLM/SPLA to rely on violence and military action as means of resolving the contradictions.

The SPLM/SPLA lacked political programme

It is virtually impossible to envisage liberation without a minimum political programme for social and economic transformation. To date (December 31, 2014), the SPLM has not produced a political programme, which is an elaborate document that translate the SPLM vision and strategic political objectives in policies and plans of action the SPLM government implements to transform the lives of the people in accordance with liberation agenda.

During the war and SPLM/SPLA’s emphasis on war efforts registered in two negativities. The first one was that it failed to evolve a society in the liberated areas counter to the society under the oppressive regime. The concept of ‘counter society’ encapsulated in the concept of ‘strong rear base’ developed by the Chinese [against the Japanese and the Nationalist] and the Vietnamese [against the Americans] is relevant to the situation in South Sudan. The rear base is the social, economic and political bases of the guerrilla army where the SPLM would implement its political programme and exercise political authority establishes its administration and implements the concepts of justice, social equality, freedom and democracy. In the rear base, the SPLM would build an economy to support its war efforts instead of relying wholly on external resources.

However, instead of developing and applying the concept of rear base in the liberated areas, the SPLM/SPLA encouraged migration of the population to become refugees [Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda] as a means of accessing logistics and food for the army. This generated another negativity. The SPLM/SPLA became dependent on external resources unlike the Anya-nya, which relied on the people in matters of food, health care and other necessities. The SPLM/SPLA forced the population that remained behind in the villages to rely on international humanitarian assistance to generated food for the army. This produced relief dependence syndrome, which still stalks the people to date in some areas.

The second negativity involved the relation between the SPLA combatants and the civil population among whom they operated characterized by brutality, dehumanization and abuse of human rights. Absolute dependence on external resources produced in the combatants an attitude that engendered disrespect for and condescendence upon the civil population.

Inability to transform the SPLM/SPLA into their respective professional spheres

The factors above combined to prevent the separation of the SPLM/SPLA into their respective professional spheres. In fact, the SPLM/SPLA evolved like Siamese twins conjoined in the heads that a surgical operation to separate them into their respective professional spheres would result in their mutual death . The lack of political education and organization; absence of constitutional order implying lack of institutions and structures in the SPLM/SPLA and lack of political programme virtually delegitimized the SPLM, demystified its leadership and disempowered its cadres. Thus, the SPLM/SPLA failed to self-transform into a mass based political party sensu stricto on the one hand and professional army on the other.

The CPA thrust the SPLM unto an unfamiliar domain of government and governance. The tragic and sudden disappearance of Dr. John Garang complicated the SPLM/SPLA political predicament as it embarked on CPA implementation. The new SPLM leadership was inept and could not manage the baggage of contradictions accumulated without resolution over twenty-one years of armed struggle.

One such contradictions is the lack of institutionalization of the SPLM/SPLA political and military power. Since its inception in 1983, power in the SPLM remained personified in the person of the Chairman and SPLA Commander in Chief that all contradictions in the SPLM/SPLA leadership revolved around that issue. It was the drivers of the split with Anya-nya two in 1983 and again within the SPLM/SPLA following the Nasir Declaration 1991. Power was the driver of the Yei crisis 2004 at the eve of the CPA and finally of the events leading to December 15, 2013 and the current civil war.

The wielding and exercise of SPLM political authority without rules and procedures negatively affected the relations within the Movement. It engendered a subculture of political patronage and clients, which eschewed democratic principles and practice. In this connection, the political tact and stature of the leader became the determinant factor in the functioning of the SPLM system. Thus although patronage system obtained Dr. John Garang managed through his personal charisma to keep the system functioning, what Dr. Lual Deng (2012) described as ‘the power of creative thinking.’ That explains how the SPLM/SPLA survived through difficult and challenging political and military situations in spite of its internal contradictions generated by the factors I discussed above.

The contradictions rocked the SPLM/SPLA generating strong ethnic under currents and civil war barely three years after independence because of those factors and the failure to resolve them through political and ideological debate, and internal dialogue. However, it was more the leadership style of comrade Salva Kiir Mayardit that permitted the fashions to reach boiling point and eruption of violence. Comrade Salva Kiir employed his military intelligence skills rather state and the SPLM institutions to manage the government of South Sudan. He built a series of spies and informants networks to inform his decisions. For the first time ethnic and regional lobbies surrounded the SPLM leadership the most notable being the Bahr el Ghazal Elders mainly from Warrap and the Jieng Council of Elders (JCE) entailing Dinka also from Upper Nile.

Through his style of leadership, President Salva Kiir Mayardit has brought South Sudan to the edge of disaster. In less than three years, the state in South Sudan made a quantum slide from fragility to failure and now tending to collapse. The society is demoralized and in despair. The economy is in shambles as the only foreign exchange earner is pumping incredibly at a loss that it might as well been better to stop production. The IGAD peace process hung up unconscionably at the sharing of power between President [Salva Kiir] and the proposed Prime Minister [Dr. Riek Machar] while innocent lives continue to perish. The current context of South Sudan is pathetic. No patriots would countenance it on account of speculation for whatsoever advantage.


Having attempted above to locate the political malaise, I want to discuss the intellectual journey proposed by Dr. Lual Deng at the beginning of the discourse. The elements of this journey are the present social and political context in South Sudan, which we attempted above to analyse. The social and political forces capable of participation in the journey, their ideological disposition, the time span of the journey. The journey trajectory situates in the globalized world defined by high level of technological and scientific development.

Before embarking on the journey I realize that South Sudan and its people have yet to place their feet on the first step are the bottom of the world socio-economic and technological development ladder hundred ninety three years since the Ottomans linked the Sudan to the world capitalist system of extraction and exploitation. This is subject of Eddie Thomas eye-catching latest title “South Sudan: A Slow Liberation” [Zed Books in press].

What then have the political, military and business elite that drive the social and political engineering processes of the state in South Sudan being doing? A cursory look into this dominant class reveals an astounding reality that it remains primitive intimately attached to archaic values and traditions of their respective ethnic formations. In 1999, I participated in a study that became the basis of implementation of USAID funded multimillion-dollar Sudan Transition Aid for Rehabilitation [STAR] Programme in ten counties of Central and Western Equatoria and Lakes in Bahr el Ghazal. The Programme provided cash to the civil society groups to engage in business that would generate wealth. After three years, the Programme discovered that the recipients of the STAR loans had invested much of the money in traditional economic activities that frustrated its strategic objective of recycling to other beneficiaries the reimbursed money.

Between 2005 and 2011 when South Sudan became independent, it had received in total about US Dollars sixteen billion from the oil revenue. I want to ask the economists what percentage of this money was invested in productive economic projects [agriculture, industry], in services sector and in education? Our people instead of ordering new cars from manufacturers in Japan, carrying cash dollars went to Uganda to buy dilapidated second sometimes third hand right-hand steering wheeled mini buses that became traffic hazards on our roads. South Sudan because the only country in the world where the US dollar note became a commodity on the formal and informal markets and which worked to service the economies of its neighbours than its own.

The political, military and business elite most of them former SPLA combatants were now involved and entangled in an intertwined blackmail that they closed their eyes and ears to what they were doing bringing down the country. They eschewed the SPLM vision and concepts of social justice, equality, freedom and prosperity as they engaged in cutthroat competition in the context of primitive accumulation of wealth. They jettisoned the comradeship cultivated in the context of the war of national liberation. This is how social and blood relations, rather than institutional and political relationships, imperceptibly crept into their practice. This engendered corruption, nepotism and ethnic favouritism (tribalism). The social, economic and political environment favoured erection of ethnic and regional lobbies as agencies for extracting favours in the form of government contracts, appoints to constitutional post and others.

The experience of the last ten years epitomizes the historical failure of bourgeois petit as agents of social transformation of an underdeveloped country like South Sudan. This brings me back to Cabral that the bourgeois petit represented by many of us must commit class suicide to resurrect in the guise of revolutionary intellectuals armed with a political ideology that places the people at the centre of our development discourse. In this connection, the class suicide blends well with the intellectual journey towards a coherent political ideology for transforming South Sudan. It cannot be another way.

Are we ready to commit class suicide to have solidarity with our people? Many of us outshine ourselves opportunistically endearing ourselves to our ethnic communities when in the heart of our hearts we foster different value systems. Do the elements that make up the Jieng Council of Elders genuinely believe in what they are doing propping up President Salva Kiir Mayardit in all the horrible things he is doing? Do they countenance the collapse of South Sudan as long as Salva Kiir is president? It is necessary to reflect before the suicide lest we may not resurrect after all. For committing class suicide means eschewing archaic ideas, false beliefs and deflating inordinately large self- or collective-ego.

This brings me to another question: in what coherent political ideology do we encapsulate the concepts of social justice, equality, freedom, democracy and prosperity for all? According to Marxist historical materialism, history does not repeat itself. You cannot catch a train that has already left station. South Sudan is in such pains today because the bourgeois petit are generating contradictions trying to recreate the conditions of primitive accumulation humankind passed five hundred years ago. This is not permissible. We should start where the world is while we live.

It is feasible and possible to implement social justice in South Sudan. Why not? The social stratification in terms of economic is bridgeable. The Government of South Sudan, with the resources available, can create conditions for social justice by combating the tendency to ethnic and regional favouritism in ditching out government contracts in order to promote equality in society. Since the bourgeois petit is not economically powerful to undertake large scale industrial installations, the government of South Sudan should undertake the construction of large industrial and infrastructural projects like railways, huge hydroelectric power planta and dams, power transmission grids and highways which need huge investments. The government can undertake these in the context of public private participation. In this way of wealth generation and distribution, it is possible to realise prosperity for all and in short time of ten to twenty years.

Democracy is another component element of social transformation. Democracy is not a raincoat you put on only in summer. A cultural trait stays with you in all that you whether private or public. The society cultivates and internalizes democracy [theory and practice] through participation in social, economic and political engineering processes of state formation and nation building. There is no other way you can parachute democratic principles and practice except in the context of the struggle for social transformation of society. That is why the concepts of democracy and democratic transformation blends with the class suicide the bourgeois petit must undertake. In this case, the concept and practice of democracy registers in active participation in the engineering processes and not establishment of bogus and briefcase political parties.

This brings me to the political format and organisation for participation. In the recent SPLM/SPLA Consultative Conference on the IGAD Peace process in Pagak, I was put to task explaining why it was necessary to reconcile the SPLM leadership and reunite the SPLM. The conference was negative charged against the Intra-SPLM Dialogue in Arusha, Tanzania. I had to mark every word I uttered. I told the conference the story of the conference of reconciliation of Jikany and Lou in Akobo in 1994. The Moderator of the reconciliation conference was a Ugandan Bishop of seventy-seven Churches. He told us a story concerning his two-year old son. I hope I will not be bothering you.

“As I prepared for Sunday service my son kept interrupting my preparation. I would give him arithmetic problem to solve. He would do it correctly. I did it several times while the time for my sermon in the Church was approaching. This prompted me to pull down and tear to pieces the world map that hung on the wall. I asked him to fix it and in two minutes, he came back with the map fixed correctly. I asked his to tell me how he did it.” The boy replied, “on the reverse side of the world map was a man, so what I did was to fix the man”. “Fixing man to resolve the problems of the world became the subject of my sermon that Sunday.”

There is nothing wrong with the SPLM per se; the people who make up the SPLM constitute the crisis in the SPLM. You will find this in what I recounted above that the SPLM leadership lost the vision that attracted the masses of the Sudanese to the SPLM to sacrifice their lives for the ideals of social justice, equality, freedom, democracy and prosperity for all. The Arusha process is an exercise in self-appraisal, criticism and self-criticism the entire SPLM membership, the half-hearted hang-ons who believe in the arrival rather than the journey, must urgently undertake to save the country from collapse.

The young republic of South Sudan and its people are in the present situation because of the SPLM historical failure to evolve a political ideology, to construct a constitution with institutions and structures, to formulate a political programme for social and economic transformation of the oppressive reality that submerged our people. In this context and for over twenty-one years the contest for power at the top consumed the energy of our people. This divided instead of uniting them as soon as the contradiction with the north had been resolved through the referendum.

The SPLM remains the only viable political forces that united South Sudanese across ethnic and regional fault lines. It is therefore the only guarantee against fragmentation of South Sudan. However, it must reconcile and reunite its ranks, reorganize and revitalize itself, build its institutions and institutionalize its relationship along the ideology of social democracy as practiced by the labour Parties in northern European countries.


The intellectual journey towards a coherent political ideology spurs serious reflections and I hope we can discourse this to its logical conclusion. For those of us in the DPF who are not SPLM members or who have an axe to grind with the SPLM I would implore that we discuss these issues sombrely. We should learn to live with our differences whether gender, political ideas, facial marks or body complexion. This is the essence of democracy. They may lead us to unity of ideas

There is nothing outrageously fatal with having one strong political party in South Sudan. If we have to catch up with the rest of humanity by stepping onto its development ladder, we cannot do that while struggling against ourselves in futile and meaningless battles that prevent us from focusing on building our country and improving our people’s quality of life.

We may have to explore the different experiences on the African continent and elsewhere and draw leaf from them. The social and political stability in Tanzania attributes to the maturity demonstrated by Chama Cha Mapenduzi (CCM) initially under the leadership of Mwalimu Julius K Nyerere. The ethnic federalism implemented by Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Party (EPRDP) has somehow created conditions of political stability in Ethiopian.

Let us pursue the dual processes of peace making and Intra-SPLM Dialogue as elements of our intellectual journey towards a coherent political ideology, a stable and peaceful South Sudan.

Thanks you very much for your time.

Nairobi, Kenya
December 30, 2014.