BY: Santino Aniek, NEW YORK, USA, OCT/25/2014, SSN;
We became fascinated by the stories of brutality of the war, realizing that suffering is the only tangible price to get jobs in South Sudan. War has become the most accessible and continuous leading alternative in finding jobs in the government sector in Africa especially in South Sudan, to personally engage and demonize citizens through violence.
The best illustration in the head of every South Sudanese people is the tribal war, Yau Yau war and the war of choice which is now killing our citizens in hundreds of thousands. Now a day in South Sudan, war has replaced tolerance, understanding, dialogue and compromise and it is the most habitually used throughout the regions.
The champions of the war of choice has influenced their tribesmen to sustain their ruthless ideology of division as well as mobilizing them to fight an endless war on South Sudanese people, by engaging their supporters with deceptive information.
Indeed, one of the many galvanizing preaching information was the genocide and coup in Juba, and has been the point of struggle to establish a national public mobilization involvement of young people and their tribesmen to help them fight this war of choice.
From the higher military commands to the youths leaders are now campaigning to fight the free South Sudanese people, and are now trying to build a fashionable struggle philosophy of discriminatory killing and the endless destruction against innocent people has been a central issue in this war of choice.
As is always the case, the future of a country is a shared responsibility between the government and its citizens and as common sense tells us, nations cannot survive if the citizens are divided internally.
In other words, an individual alone cannot survive the future of a nation, but it is a collective responsibility of the citizens and the government. The crux of the debate is therefore argued that the government may have reinforced and deeper propelling force pushing the country into conflict.
However, South Sudanese people solely believe that the government has full responsibility and is mandated to provide services, and maintain law and order for its all citizens across the country.
In fact before the war, the citizens were extremely worried that the country was declining so profoundly that it will become vulnerable to future attacks within and outside by its traditional enemy in Khartoum.
The government was very aware of the risks they were assuming, and they choose the war only with a great reluctance knowing that the civilians are going to be pretentious.
In the end, the government has chosen the war for one simple reason; they believed without a war they would not maintain their day job because the public were fed up with government policies toward human services and development services in the new nation.
In those days, the reaction and the outcry by many citizens to the government was proceeding unanimously that it was practically possible to hold the government accountable for the setback that has been facing the nation for the last eight years.
In addition, the role of local communities to participate and contribute in maintaining security and peace as a paramount priority was also declining, because there was no good relationship between the government and the local communities.
Nevertheless, it is truly that there is no way that the government alone can provide and sustain security or law and order in the country without the help of the local communities at large.
Meanwhile, it was the hope of each and every South Sudanese people prior to independence that the government is going to create a partnership with the local communities to address the current challenges and the conflicting wounds of the civil war.
Sadly, the government was happy to accept the gospel of the war without wanting to address the issues. More generally, it is widely known that there is a very disturbing trend occurring in the new nation in which our people’s lives are being threatened by this war of choice from those who want to raise their families through bloody job, and it is a gloomy side from which our history is being reanimated.
Furthermore, it is tremendously despondent that regular people get caught up in this conflict for subjugation by a very few avaricious individuals who have been advocating for conflict in South Sudan.
Oftentimes, the popular culture identity of us against them whereby popular politician forms a group of armed men and provides them with false platform of information exhibition of intricacies and powers them to annihilate innocent people’s lives is now gaining a countrywide support among the South Sudanese society.
In fact, the philosophy of war has become a part of politics identity since the country has been engaging in so many wars and now has an opportunity to link this philosophy directly to their experiences they had in the 21 years of civil war.
Similarly, this link between tribes and politicians is becoming more and more ubiquitous, and has been attracting the public inquiry in recent years that is triggering critical instability and uncertainty in the country.
In this situation, it is increasingly signifying both in national government and local government as well as individuals and communities are now striving of joining this war of choice, and this new politics identities of a largely exclusive in the country has achieved so much support among the South Sudanese communities.
It is in the view of this, my article would like to bring to the forefront of modality in the ways of informing the citizens of South Sudan to accept peace, tolerance, compromise, forgiveness, dialogue and negotiation for “everlasting peace”, because the country has reached a limitation, and we need to change course to overcome this crisis with more thoughtful and compassionate responding to this tragic war of choice.
The inscription of politics identities of inclusive of all the tribes of South Sudan has to be a part of the government’s responsibility and power sharing in the next government is instantaneously fundamental.
Subsequently, the election of 2010 has encouraged opposition politicians and civil society activists and now has an opportunity to compete with the Ruling Party to get their message across in part, because of the availability of political risk and lesson learnt during the civil war.
In addition, and perhaps more importantly, the public also has an opportunity to realize that the government has lack responsibility and accountability that empowers the public to direct their concerns and views point to the government as a result of rewarding those who kill innocent people.
Sadly enough, the government is frequently attacking those who happen to disagree with the militias, while they are rewarding militias with a higher position and building a conducive relationship between the two.
There is another aspect to this story, and that is the government is denying many South Sudanese people who are qualify to hold these positions in the government, but tragically these ruthless pathetic criminal, and unwanted human beings in the South Sudanese society are given these important position.
This practice appears to be conflicting or contradictory to the laws of any nation, unless the government succeeded in implementing laws and orders, the country may have to accept this madness brought forth by the narrowed-mined war custodian.
Nevertheless, my article is trying to highlight the war of choice within the category of public discourses and the deliberations of this conflict, which aids the advancement of participatory of these militias that are now dragging the country into a civil war.
These so-call leaders uses the communities with a deliberately simple message to turn the communities against each other and try to make sense to these actors who truly believe in a destructive articulation with the intention of participation in the government workforce, and they always signal the distribution of disadvantage in fashionable society of new nation.
In the view of this, my article adopts a theoretical approach that uses the experience of two wars, and the take away in these wars is obviously, the vital resources needed to fight the war and the human suffering is tremendously heartbreaking.
More importantly, the predicament and hardship our citizens have been facing and the mentality of rewarding criminals has encouraged a sizable number of people to join the war of choice.
As a result, many people are extremely suffering and lost their lives in the name of positions or jobs in the government substantially, especially in the Greater Upper Nile of the World.
Meanwhile, keeping the likelihood of early mobilizing our people especially in the loop of all communities to embrace “everlasting peace”, my article however, uses relevant information from the episodes of the two conflicts that has been going on for quite some time.
Nonetheless, the quaintest mechanism is that South Sudanese self-proclaimed-politicians and so called leaders in the new nation have lost the ethics and values of leadership to the extent of reaching borderline of intimidation of its own citizens, and so it is becoming a struggle.
In terms of politics, in South Sudan in this day and age, war has replaced political philosophy and has become role player in promoting a false debate and creating conflict among the South Sudanese society.
The enablement of the prevention of inclusive participation of all South Sudanese citizens in the government has gone a long way of no meaning and seem to form a dictatorship process that raises in attempting to make the war of choice a pillar upon which societal politics rest on.
However, accountability and transparency are the normal demand by the citizens from their government and most of the times in South Sudan, it is not possible to operate and function freely and normally without interference and intimidation by the government.
Equally enough, reform is not only necessary but urgent considering what has been proceeding in the new nation has been extremely troubling and all the South Sudanese communities including international communities are becoming exceptionally concerned.
In fact, what happened has shown the absence of law and order in the country and it is a clear failure of the leadership, which needs to be addressed with urgency, and has to be on the top of the agenda of the next government.
Nevertheless, the new nation has totally failed to reach a democratic transition as a breakthrough improvements meant to be pursued during the country’s civil war with regime in Khartoum. Even though, few communities who are supporting the war of choice think that the current war will look like an improvement than the past civil war, it is totally misleading the public because we are killing future generations and it is only a dispute of leadership.
Furthermore, this war of choice remains the number one sources of acquiring wealth and an employment to those who have nothing but to kill innocent people in order to get jobs in the government.
Though, war in South Sudan also encourages few individuals to own wealth through the enhancement of creating conflict by giving preference to those who support their causes, and this practice is believed to be against the norms and the values of the South Sudanese people.
More importantly, war has become a key player among the South Sudanese communities. Today it is transforming to a field of an employment and offers people with new belongings, fame and self-identification. Obviously, given the fact that the majority of our citizens still have no access to their daily news, war is becoming the window of misleading.
Therefore, while trying to adopt the model of public rights for the citizens to know what the government is embodying, South Sudan departs from other nations where the right of the citizens are being manipulated by the government and tried to make nonsense accuses to covered up the dishonest burden.
The importance of these claims during struggle mention that the country will be moving toward a democratic approach to emphasize the need of the citizens is now proven to be an empty promise.
Studies indicated though, issues of politics of division and politics of isolationism are the main dominants in fairly politicized fashion and other broad issues like tribalism is part of the factors that caused this war of choice, and therefore can be categorized into issues of crime, corruption, service delivery, poverty, economy, education, political party dominance or proportional representation and the need for political reform in the new nation.
Yet the sweeping changes of eight years ago in South Sudan have now shifted from animated to worst despite the tremendous experience of 21 years of civil war, which was the hope to build a unifying country. In addition, the establishment of the politics of division, politics of isolationism and its subsequent undemocratic initiatives is clearly represent a worst foundation for future extensions of equal access and opportunity to all citizens in South Sudan.
The aim of my article is to examine the war of choice and how self-representation and the expressions of selfhood emerging from these individuals that are seeking an employment through war and has not constituted a mediated public sphere, which is not creating avenues for public discourse in South Sudan.
The aim should be understood against the background of the government and the social political realities in which the new nation define relations among different classes of people in South Sudanese society.
What we are observing now however, is the dynamics of power rocking that is playing itself out in the way certain attitudes and personalities seek to become dominant while others may be relegated or silenced in the course of political structure taking place in South Sudanese politics.
Nowadays such a regime of anti-freedom and equality, encourages individuals and groups to bring their own experiences and opinions into public debates leading to new understandings of the political structure in the society.
In addition, my article present an exemplary of intervention in which a government and rebel may bargain in order to avoid falling into a civil war and however, the two parties may adopt the mentality of forgiveness, tolerance, compromise, dialogue, and peace to reach an agreement.
If they want the fighting to continue, the government and the rebels have to decide what level of atrocities they want to commit, and a third party may intervene to halt atrocities. By including a number of different parameters, the exemplary underscores how complex the intervention conundrum actually is.
Therefore, this work critically examines the potential of war of choice as a means of reinventing politics through mediation and intervention. War of choice has consequently become a channel through which different interest groups in South Sudanese society seeks an employment especially in the government sector using different kinds of messages and ideologies.
However, in this regard to the debates of war of choice in the South Sudan context, conclude that such a war has become a lens through which few people may begin to organize themselves and commit atrocities to get a position in the government.
Equally, people of South Sudan are now able to grasp the dynamics of an evolving political of division and politics of isolationism with several attempts of individual and group interest in particular ways in order to either remain important or kill their opponent.
While demonstrating the impact of the struggle for freedom and equality access to free its own citizen, the idea of “right to live” needs to be implemented in South Sudan now or else.
Nevertheless, the war of choice advertising remains an affordable in South Sudan. It is however, remain to be effective that targeting the vast majority of audiences in the country. The principle of reconciliation, tolerance, dialogue, compromise, and peace among the South Sudanese communities is immediately needed.
Despite the dominance or popularity of the war of choice, our citizens must abandon this recklessness practice once and for all and adopt peace and unity.
The overall interpretation from the perspective of war in general, continue to tell us that war is extremely horrific, and therefore, our undertaking has to create a way forward strategy of a collective compromise, because we need to change the culture of war and the mindset of these ruthless politicians who are always dragging us into conflict.
As a final thought, our citizens need to think only about their future and the future of the country they liberated some years ago. They have duty not to support any politicians who moralizes violence against innocents people, and they also have responsibility to reject the validity of any form of division once and for all.
We must continue to appeal to a system of tolerance, compromise, forgiveness, dialogue, and peace that is designed to empower all the citizens and build successful politics of understanding and put our differences aside. We must embrace peace and unity, because those cold-blooded leaders will never be defeated by the use of this war of choice.
Santino Aniek is a concerned South Sudanese in Upstate New York, U.S.A. He can be reached firstname.lastname@example.org and find me on Facebook, on Skype and on twitter @saniek.