South Sudanese need for good governance vs. Ignorance and Utopianism

BY: Marial Mach’ Aduot Mach, Australia

JAN. 30/2012, SSN; As the end of the Cold War marks the demise of global disparity, what becomes paramount in the mess of transitions is the norm of good governance in which the rulers conform, not only to seek public consensus, but to the rule of law which harbours selflessness, concerns and responsibility.

Hypothetically, still there is no unanimity in how this consensus or rule of law is achieved considering the facts that some governments around the world are still using military impunity and conscripted ideologies to oppress their citizens and embezzle the little incomes own by the state.

In contrast to unscripted liberal notions of good governance, what becomes indisputable although it has some few hindrances is a reality of free and safer individualism. This experiment is proving to be different in correlations to the Marxist theory of proletariat (Bourgeoisies of course).

However, what constitutes a much difference in the above contrast is the notion that theory of good governance emphasis responsibility within the parameter of the law, while the class theory respected who is who in the army or in upper-class elite who doesn’t care or respect the rule of the law. In the weak of make incident in the South Sudan now with less government responses, the question is are we about to see don’t care emphasis or are we already in it?

Someone’s with cheap understanding of governance and democracy will argue the effectiveness of the current administrations, which is good; but they might right and wrong. First I will contradict dependents and defenders of the government regarding many bad practices or ill-response by governments on the issues such as the insecurity in Jonglei; hence it doesn’t care or respect the mandate of election.

This suggestion is descriptively indivisible with what we have in Juba and the entire ten states of South Sudan. Somehow structurally, we have the system put in place to ensure collective wellbeing, but is it working as expected?  Yes and no will be applied here. Government is working by presenting us at the internationally stage and also as the speaker on the people’s behaviour on other political issues, but it is not at the centre stage of domestic issues.

What has become satirically and hypothetically right and wrong in this case is the issue of governance and responsibility. Let make no mistakes, some states are yet to evolve into the real liveable place were rights and dignity are not only respected and protected. South Sudan doesn’t fit here because of rulers without responsibilities.

Before the July 9 last year, Southern Sudanese which had been an integral part of long war and inhumane treatment in former Sudan were expecting break from impunity and merciless life. This was a dream of those poisoned by Khartoum’s peril of bad precipices to come and enjoy the promise of unity among Southerners to be protected by government.

As of today, every South Sudanese walk with the pride of citizenship, thanks to all those who die for the cause so that we those who live can enjoy. But in the case of killing in Jonglei and other parts of South Sudan, people inside and out will have point if they questioned government’s credibility to keep peace and provided the security to the people they fight long and harder.

It is a challenge to be viewed with care by our current rulers in their capacity and any other able Southerner who failed the responsibility of keeping us in peace rather than at war with each other. However in my view, I believe government arrangements are toxic with war time perceptions were concern was not formulated.

The lack of the concern toward the citizens show by current administrations prove the point that (rulers) soldiers who witnessed many account of deaths in the past don’t mind if eight hundred people get killed in one day in Lou as well as other places. But that is not correct. For the government with international recognitions, it is appropriate to mourn and make moves against the killer/s even if it is single person.

In the time of war, assume it was 1992, I would have not bother because national interest at that time was on the line, but as of now, the priorities of the government not at war with other state is to address the issues affecting citizens such as the insecurity.

But in contrary, our current leaders, for instant, in my own state of Jonglei to the higher throne of the nation are naïve and reluctant to act against people’s concerns. This show a sense of irresponsibility hence there is little or no respects for human dignity in which they assume to had fought for.

Not to be misquoted in this case, I am not calling for the full war against the killers, but preventing them from killing is better than going after them. I believe those leaders know it, but they don’t have strategy. Let it not be very confusing if I just said they ‘don’t have strategy’. They might have one, but does it work?

No! The strategy that can work is a ‘concern’ itself. In term of the present world, good governance is increasingly used in anywhere to stigmatise failures. In South Sudan, leader by intuitions need to show this concern toward the people who fought and surfers during the war irrespective of the party or the leader.

In these difficult times in Jonglei and other part with perversive death, it is logically and shamefully unpleasant for the sitting president and almost un-directed bureaucrats to watch without action while the people are killing themselves. It might very interesting to watch as of the Lou Nuer invaded the Murlie, but beware spectators; it might explode?? Please order the state of emergency in Jonglei Mr. President.

Marial Mach’ Aduot Mach is a political graduate at Deakin University, Australia. He can be reach for comments or suggestions at paandepiol@yahoo.com

COMMENTS, PLEASE CLICK HERE

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author(s) and do not represent those of the website.