By: Gatkuoth Lok, APR/16/2015, SSN;
In this rigorous analysis, we’ll focus on Dr. Machar, the SPLM/SPLA- IO chairman and his politico-contemporaries namely Dr. John Garang and president Kiir Mayardit. In this respect we shall briefly explore and detail the grounds on which it is inevitably right and suitable to attribute the independence of South Sudan to Machar and necessarily ascribing democracy to him undoubtedly.
Besides, we will further be able to explicitly expose Machar’s political pursuit in 1990s on compared to Garang’s as well as his political ideology in evaluation to Kiir’s political ideology.
In the course of this demanding discussion we expressly ought to figure out the ideals harbored by the said troika-political-leaders and to find out who among these leaders truly became instrumental in terms of his ultimate goal plus his political ideology as well during and after the SPLM or SPLA liberation struggle and who remains truly non-instrumental, not workable to date.
This in the end shall land us to sincerely and wholeheartedly admit that Dr. Machar Teny is the only politician in this Republic with his country deeply seated in his very heart.
Based upon his unquestionable nationalism and patriotism in objectively choosing what works best for the citizens of this blossoming Democracy, Machar qualifies himself not only the father of this country but also the leadership best exemplary for the country as a whole, Africa and indeed fits himself for the rest of the world at best.
Having seen the topic under discussion-being workable, sounding and resounding worthy proving thesis, the key questions one is about to ask here are what the author does have in mind on the issue in question and whether or not he may be knowledgeable about the history of South Sudan. Have it gone through and examined.
Prior to embarking on the matter and giving some possible solutions to those mentioned doubts I would rather like to inform us dear readers whether or not you like it, that politics per se, in South Sudan political perspective, in my viewpoint and probably beyond is to politically morally and militarily fight for the total freedoms and benefits of the people of one’s own politically defined territory.
Coming back to the topic at issue, the question is, has Dr. Machar fought for what about which this author places him at the right side of the history of this politically defined territory known as the Republic of South Sudan?
Can we rationally and empirically give undoubted and undeniable vindications to make our thesis valid? Next we shall get settled in the succeeding dialectical reasoning. What for?
Good enough, we are going to work out to give sufficient rejoinders in the following subtopics notably; ‘Machar over Garang’ and ‘Machar over Kiir,’ two of which function for substantiating the given thesis. Have a look below then.
Dr. Machar over Dr. Garang
Did Machar win the history of the liberation struggle over Garang? I answer, yes he won it. Now scrutinize critically, in 1991 Dr. Machar disagreed with Dr. Garang on what to fight for. Why?
Simply because Machar thought it right that to fight for Self-determination consequential to the Independence- the total beneficial freedom to the people of southern Sudan, would rather work best for the common good or will of southern Sudanese.
This Machar’s better off antithesis opposed to Garang’s below worse off thesis became the best choice during the referendum on Machar’s self-determination.
Dr. John Garang thought it, erroneously right that to fight for unity of Sudan under new basis would rather be workable for the greater good of all marginalized Sudanese. This was or is a good idea however, unworkable. This is the straw which broke the camel’s back.
This hot rupture got resolved when Machar and Garang themselves realistically agreed to sign the comprehensive peace agreement, CPA, that enshrined their pursuits and the two principal leaders made what is documented as Nairobi declaration, in 2002.
This courageous decision from our dear leaders helped us to choose between their said pursuits, namely Machar’s secession and Garang’s unity of Sudan in a conducive environment. The question pops up, which one did we choose for its workability and which one did we not choose for its unworkability?
In answering this question, what got actualized in favor of southern Sudanese destiny was Dr. Machar’s political pursuit; being self-determination resultant to our breathtaking Independence, on 9.7.2011. This is now Machar’s victory. And this historic and historical victory for Dr. Machar happened when Dr. Garang died in Museveni-Kiir helicopter crash, unfortunately.
Where did we leave Garang’s pursuit then? Eh, Dr. Garang’s pursuit, unanimously and contemptuously was left to Malik Aggar and Yasir Saed el Arman (SPLM or SPLA-N leaders) in the North Sudan by us who have chosen freedom in the sovereign South.
Without any doubt, it follows that our thesis that Dr. Machar won over Dr. Garang in terms of their political pursuits has been proved beyond any reasonable reservation.
Any shadow of doubt yet? No, not at all, though it shall bewilder ordinary readers yet clear to those who are able to discuss ideas, ideologies and philosophies. What of the death in 1991?
Looked at superficially, one may ask why Dr. Machar’s 1991 correction declaration victimized a lot of people from different communities. And another person may enquire whether possible blames can be objectively put on both sides of the then conflict and lifting irrational bias of being unjustly judgmental on Machar and excusing Garang to remain blame-free, while in reality Garang himself was the prime cause of the war.
Yet another may still in confidence think that Garang is blameworthy while Machar is praiseworthy. A concerned person still might further ask of who will be liable for the deceased death between these opposing protagonists.
Giving somewhat answers to the proceeding questions, I must say that because the prime cause of the 1991 split was Garang himself for he imposed unworkable pursuit – unity of Sudan, he, Dr John remained answerable.
Garang influenced a lot of South Sudanese including my granddad to fight for what they were less aware of. That was inhuman to use people who were unable to know the purpose of their fight against anyone, or right exponent as Machar.
All those people just followed Garang for the sake of following him. They all got lost in the world of they-ness, epistemologically speaking, so to speak. So correcting this trend, for Machar was or is never ever sacrosanct, rather the reverse.
When hearing people today blaming Machar for fighting for Self-determination consequential to dream became true Independence, as pronounced by Dr. Machar himself the day before the Independence celebrations, they merely do that in hope to assassinate his very personality and to vilify his name in order for him to have no chance to become president of this country for the man shall change the false history of South Sudan, Garang’s new converts fear.
We can see that it is a manifestation of a deep seated hatred against Machar for it is known in general ethics that when two evils occur you rather go for the lesser evil.
Now what do we benefit from that lesser evil which Machar opted for?
Looking into those queries and speculations-they get resolved partly by Machiavellian theory which is applicable here, for it says ‘the end justifies the means.’
Then, that partly the death of our people in the aforesaid war year was never intended whatsoever. This necessitates forgiveness and reconciliation countrywide in due time.
Again in the light of Machiavellian theory mentioned, the rational question to ask is, is the aforementioned 1991 case an exception? To me the answer is negative that it isn’t.
Is South Sudan Independence a valuable freedom for all South Sudanese of different walks of life? I answer with affirmative, then why brooding over the death of our people whose untimely death, which is sacrificial one, turned out as our today’s pride?
Can we not be heartened and solaced by this fact, which reads in this embodiment: our fallen heroes and heroines died in fighting for the extant independence in one form or the other; hence they did not die in vain?
For we all cry when commemorating their lives and duties as well as we all laugh when remembering their epoch achievements on our existent Independence. This kind of political action is not sacrosanct as I alluded to somewhere above. It is one of the useful-meaningful side of politics. It might resonate resembling what is known as necessary evil politically speaking. Let it be.
We have to bear it embracing the spirit of tolerance resulting to realization of our common good minus what takes us apart genuinely loving what binds us together effecting prosperity coming into existence, and this is tantamount to happiness of us all.
Next we turn to discuss how Machar’s political ideology is overshadowing Kiir’s.
Dr. Machar over Mr. Kiir
Dr. Machar is now winning over Mr. Kiir. What is the reason for this? To right away answer you without any further ado, I must say that Dr. Machar has got a doable political ideology opposed to Kiir’s. This brings us to wonder of what the two political key players’ ideologies may be. What are their political ideologies then?
Let us answer in the following order. Machar be first and Kiir next.
What is Machar’s political ideology? In short, Machar’s political ideology is none other than Democracy. In this democracy or government, Machar’s system of governance as he already fine-tuned, is federalism. And this federal government shall get undergirded by a federal constitution, which is the skeleton of the sovereign state of South Sudan.
Then this constitution embodies all fundamental rights, especially inalienable rights of all men and women viz: South Sudanese and others. It also contains diverse provisions on how best different public institutions can get re-established and how preeminent they ought to function.
It implies that justice content too, is guaranteed; be it the rule of law, rights and equality ….etc. Such a tremendous success be compelling us to impose both transparency and accountability rigorous application in all state public institutions and this encompasses all three government levels, notably; federal, state and county.
This is synonymous to radical eradication of corruption in the country; hence it is the potential emergence of much needed prosperity.
This exactly is consequential to Machar’s would-be prosperous African tiger: a democratic federal state of South Sudan, in which Mabior, Ajawin, Udiki, Gatdet, Tombe, to mention a few from our beautiful diverse ethnic groups, all indiscriminately shall be enjoying Machar’s state of equal rights, identical dignity, equivalent opportunities based on merit and so on.
Next is the instillation of the what-ness of Kiir’s political ideology, what is it all about?
Well, Kiir’s political ideology is all about dinkocracy as ElHaj Paul oftentimes labels it or what the distinquished Professor David Dechand characterizes as Kiirocracy or it was also characterized as benyocracy by professor Taban Loliong of the university of Juba and this typical government by definition is a government of Dinka by the Dinka for the Dinka. Such dinkocracy is for Dinka elders, a real substitution of democracy and its definition.
The system of governance in this respect is totally a confused way of intermittently talking to use decentralized system of governance and ending up practicing centralized system of governance that is branded as quasi-decentralized system of governance directed by Dinka elders based on a policy known as muonyjiengism that embedded the necessity of institutionalizing a Jieng state, in which non-Jiengs have been criterioned to die in anywhere they are found.
South Sudanese have already witnessed the genocidal program of this Kiir’s Jieng state early when what I called Kiiroproject first got applied on Lou Nuer in 2006. This war by President Kiir killed approximately 6,000 or more.
Then the sequential killings went on to Shulluk (Chollo) kingdom where in Owacj 2010 and so more or less thousands of unarmed people were mass-massacred, Gawaar and Laak Nuer in Kaldak in 2011 were mercilessly annihilated. Bol Nuer in 2010 too were given the same treatment of their cousins and it reached Murle people in 2010-2013 where Kiir worked harder and harder to eliminate the whole tribe by all means, God forbids.
This paradigmatic Kiir’s ill-sequentialism of genocide resulted to its irrational action peak on 15.12.2013 during which all Nuers of different walks of life were criterioned as 91s by none other than president Kiir Mayardit himself.
All the aforesaid homicides of non-Jiengs were meant to pave Kiir’s way to possibly institutionalize an exclusively Jieng State in which Dinka’s ‘we-are-born-to-rule-and-not-to-be-ruled’ be implemented to its fullness.
This has been proved right by Bona Malual, one of the Jeing council of elders who explicitly put it clear that such a state has to exist by all means necessary, or else Dinka will have nowhere to go, Malwal argued.
Such killings to institutionalize Jieng state, need to be stopped by all the targeted abovementioned Nations plus targeted Nations in potency.
For if these Nations leave the problem to one Nation like Nuer, it will come to annihilate them one by one, should the Nuer be unable to stand their ground in full support of the SPLM or SPLA-IO, this is the intentionality of Kiir Mayardit.
I call upon all people South Sudan, particularly the experiencing Murle, Shulluk, Fertits and Equatorians, and Dinka Pandang that they should not easily forget the struggle for appeasement ranks and money. That all of you have to say enough is enough in a nationalistic way to Dinka government.
To sum up our thesis, existential logic obliges us to admit that Dr. Riek Machar Teny won over Dr. John Garang. And president Kiir is being won over by Dr. Machar Teny.
Based upon his mission, the independence of South Sudan that got actualized plus his vision, democracy tied with federalism, Dr. Machar has qualified himself to be called the founding father of this country who right now settles assured at the right side of this Republic history and his rivals settle uncertain at the reverse.
I expect a bitter reaction from Kiir’s Sycophants, tribal bigots, Jieng indoctrinated lackeys, radicalized diehards, quasi-professors and care-free cronies, all those who unknowingly or knowingly refuse objective knowledge, may be tempted to make some premature conclusions or shall start writing non-reflected upon responses, attacking personalities.
Should any one feel like doing so, let them, for methinks it is true for me to give you this simple piece of critique. If anyone should choose to write in a scientific way, let them, for that’s what I entertain most than the opposite. Have your strictures on this or otherwise. END