Kiir’s decision to create an additional eighteen states is questionable at best
6 min readBy Juach Garang Bul, Perth, Perth, Australia
October 6, 2015 (SSB) — It was not until I awoke on Saturday morning and accessed social media that I discovered that president Kiir had issued a presidential decree extending the current ten States to twenty-eight, dividing South Sudan into ethnic States. This puzzled me, and I asked myself why the president would issue such a feudal decree. The creation of more States is not that bad in and of itself, but it’s unlikely to do much to solve any problems either, nor was the current set up the primary cause for conflict in the young nation. The decision should lie with the people of South Sudan, not the president alone. The people should have the final decision on if they want twenty-eight states or not. There are some communities that should be given individual statehood, but not all of the communities that the President has indicated.
The claim of the majority of South Sudanese was to have a practical federal system in which all levels of governments rule themselves without interference from federal government. The creation of twenty eight States had not been demanded, as some of my colleagues have claimed. As such, the president and his closed cohorts came up with this decision against the demands of the South Sudanese people. It is a decision that seems like a political intrigue to appease some political elites who want to revolt against the regime in Juba, and join Riek Machar. It may also be a political decision made to purposely rift Dinka living in the Greater Upper Nile, vanquished by Nuer in the region.
As I see some of my colleague on social media celebrating the idea of creating twenty-eight states, I patiently wait to see how the President and his regime would implement the formation of twenty-eight states and give them the powers necessary to effectively govern themselves. The idea of ‘taking towns to the people’ was, in my view, not to forge an ethnic states based governmental system, but to deliver services in rural areas so that the people living there have access to facilities equal to those available to the people living in urban areas.
Facilities such as roads, which will connect State capital with its counties, and also allows local businessmen and women to buy their goods in towns and take them to rural areas, health care services, education and security etc. I think this was what the late John Garang meant by taking towns to people.
Believe it or not, it has been ten years since the Juba government, led by Kiir, came into power. Regardless, they have done nothing to implement the vision projected and well-illustrated by the late leader John Garang de Mabior. The questions that should be asked by many sound minded elites are; ‘Why at this time in history has the government decided to ‘take towns to people’ by creating more twenty-eight States?’ and ‘Why at a time when the country is tearing itself apart along ethnic lines?’
To me, the idea of creating more states shouldn’t be the decision of one man, it should be made by the people of South Sudan through a referendum. Politically, I often differ with the rebels’ leader, Riek Machar, like when he brought the idea of creating twenty-three states during the peace talk in Addis Ababa. It was wrong then for one man to come up with his own idea and impose it upon the people. Democracy is a form of government in which all laws are created by a general vote of a given society. This means that if there’s any feud in the mainstream government then the public have to decide through referendum whatever law is best for them.
This is how a representative and accountable regime works. I’ve seen some people congratulating the president for creating more states out of current ten, I ask them ‘what would be the benefit of having another eighteen states in addition to the ten that are already failing?’ Will the federal government create effective State governments to rheostat the economy, budgets and other forms of State bureaucracy?‘
Unless the federal government assures the people of South Sudan that it won’t interfere in the states affairs, then the whole idea point of creating more states will be undermined. I think the president and his government should explain how these twenty-eight states will operate.
The government in South Sudan, in theory could be described as a federal government, but it has failed in the past to give states the power to govern themselves. In practice, it does allocate powers from federal to state government, and then to local government. As such, unitary system best describe the Juba’s regime, as it is a system in which government governs as a single entity.
The regime in Juba sucks out elected governors, and reappoints them arbitrarily. This makes me think that the presidential decision to create twenty eight States is not in the interest of the South Sudanese. Rather, it has been political motivated to abrogate peace agreement.
Think analytically; why would the President create more states while the current states are on the brink of collapse, and why this time when the country is about to achieved peace deal? Is this really taking towns to the people? Based on the model proposed by Kiir, all Dinka will have their own States and likewise to Nuer and many other tribes. What does this means precisely? Is the President not encouraging Dinka vs Nuer sectarianism? Would it be possible for a Nuer to visit Dinka States? Could a member of any tribe live in another state without oppression, or without fear of being slayed?
I think the president is encouraging a tribal state which would make it harder for people like the Dinka Bor to co-exist with their neighbours, the Nuer. For instance, in Jongelei States which comprise of Bor, Twi and Dukeen, these people used to be one people until the unending political struggle made them political foes. What would guarantee that the Greater Bor people could live in peace amongst themselves and coexist with their neighbours, the Nuer?
I think this decision should be reviewed. It should be explained better to the people of South Sudan, how each state would operate. Will they still depend on federal government, or will they be able to handle issues on their own? The merits of this decision are uncertain and it would be best to illustrate them to the people before we start celebrating.
Last and not least, why is the President making this decision at such a critical moment? Why not liaise with the people prior to dividing them into ethic states without popular consultation?
For me, I have no problem with having more states, but it should be a decision of people not the government alone. We also should look at the reality of each State. Would they be viable in the long run given the situation of current ten states? I think we should try to have peace achieved first, before trying to reform the federal system. A nation is made up of people with strong bonds of identity, such as their tribe, but having tribal states would likely only encourage disunity.
–
The opinion expressed here is solely the view of the writer. The veracity of any claim made are the responsibility of the author, not PaanLuel Wël: South Sudanese Bloggers (SSB) website. If you want to submit an opinion article or news analysis, please email it to paanluel2011@gmail.com. SSB do reserve the right to edit material before publication. Please include your full name, email address and the country you are writing from.
About Post Author
