South Sudan: Feigning Democracy and Human Rights
By Malith Alier, Juba
Democracy is said to be a government of the people for the people and by the people.
Some important quotes about democracy can help further understanding of the term democracy.
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried” Winston Churchill.
“In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme” Aristotle.
“As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master, this expresses my idea of democracy” Abraham Lincoln
Apart from democracy, there exist other forms of government most of them have been tried but failed as quoted above.
Autocracy/despotism – government of a sovereign with uncontrolled authority
Aristocracy – government by nobility
Bureaucracy – government by departments of state
Oligarchy – government by a few
Plutocracy – government by the rich
Hierarchy/hagiarchy/hagiocracy – government by priest or ecclesiastics
Statocracy – government by a military class
Kakistocracy – government by the worst citizens
Episcopacy – government of the church by Bishops
Theocracy – government by divine guidance
The last form of government is what the people of south Sudan left behind in the Sudan. Many successive governments there in the old Sudan pay allegiance to the Quran and sundry that emanate from Islam. The last war was sometimes construed to be a religious war simply because of invocation of jihad by the rulers in Khartoum. The other view related to the way those rulers came power. It has been rumored that if one is not a Muslim, he/she cannot be a president of the Sudan.
In this article, the author focuses on the political system and the government of South Sudan post independence. He has to explore the human rights situation in the country along with whether the government of that country is a true democracy or not.
It is evident that many countries around the world are feigning democracy not only South Sudan which has just emerged from a two decades devastating civil war. Take for example many nation states in Africa have elections that return same individuals over and over again. This is true in Zimbabwe, Uganda, guinea, Egypt, Eritrea, Lesotho, Swaziland, Tunisia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Somalia, Ethiopia and many others. There is always a big tragedy awaiting countries that feign democracy and human rights. This is a consequence of staying in office for too long. This happened to Zaire (present day DRC), Somalia, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, CAR, Sudan and other potential countries long under the grip of power angry despots.
On the same path is the republic of South Sudan under the SPLM rule. In our case one can say that the supposed democracy has been hijacked by quasi despots that came in the name of liberation. Was the liberation from “what?” or from “who?” This who/what question is answered depending on one’s perceptions. But many people agree that the “what” question was the aim of the liberation. The answers for from “what” are from Arabism and Islamism that lead to a complete domination in the long run. The answer for from “who” is from the Arabs though not Pure Arabs but mixed race people who still exhibit chauvinism of the middle Eastern ideals.
An official from the ruling SPLM observed that the party of liberation has been hijacked apparently by those who were inside the Sudan during the struggle. This was echoed by the former vice President albeit in rather a bizarre way that those who were in Khartoum are politically informed or politically active than those who were outside. This assertion was vehemently rejected by the target group who claimed that theirs is a different political ideology from that of those who remained behind inside the Sudan.
The ideals of the liberation were best explained in the concept of “New Sudan.” This arisen from the fact that the old Sudan was not modeled in such a way to accommodate the diverse groups of people of different origins namely, people of African origin and those who claimed to be of Middle Eastern or Arab descent. The new Sudan concept was thought to be the way out of that parochial state of affairs characterized by total domination politically, economically and socially. The concept of new Sudan tried to create an all inclusive country to nurture equal progress of citizens of social, economic and political spheres.
The concept of the “New Sudan” after the break up could not be retained. The people of South Sudan were now not sure where to apply it because it was meant for a democratic and united Sudan. It has therefore been abandoned on the paper essentially after the demise of the proponent. Nobody seems to be proud of it anymore.
The country now pretends to embrace the so-called democracy and human rights. However, some people argue that democracy and human rights are western notions and cannot be fully understood by the African continent. They are there in theory perhaps to please western donors who export it to least developed and developing nations. Democracy has been misconstrued to mean elections full stop. Democracy means; equality, freedom and rule of law. Democracy is not the absence of dictatorship.
South Sudan was ranked among the top most failed states this year. This is a result of many problems like violence, embedded corruption, poor infrastructure etc. these are taking place directly under the watch of the ruling SPLM party.
After the second year into independence, the nation is growing with violence of unimaginable scale. This has resulted in loss of lives, displacement and destruction of property. The fact that the country is still at loggerheads with the Sudan is no excuse. It’s South Sudan that has not psychologically liberated itself from the old Sudan.
The so-called cooperation agreement was a product of the African Union, UNSC and to some extends South Sudan. That was why it was very difficult to negotiate and more difficult to implement. Despite the fact that the rest of the world received the cooperation agreement with optimism the great majority of South Sudanese rejected it outright. Implementation was not the issue here. It was too obvious that the agreement will suffer the same fate like other agreements dishonoured before. Many citizens were of the view that the pact was giving too much to Sudan. The insertion of four freedoms was seen as a grave mistake. If the people of South Sudan were pleased to freely mingle with the “holy” people of the Sudan who have denied them freedom for so long then there was no need for separation in the first place.
The cooperation agreement negotiators who had never been replaced against their counterparts on the other side since CPA era tried to ramp the whole agreement down our throats. Their argument was that the agreement was not fully understood as inked. The whole section of the negotiators led by the SPLM secretary General was on the defensive.
The said agreement stands now dishonoured after a few million barrels of oil have crossed the territory of the Sudan for international market. The public knew that our borders should not be exchange for oil. The Sudan was insisting on security likewise south Sudan should have insisted on borders and their demarcation. Oil was the last resort to warrant our attention.
Some instruments of democracy in the country are currently dysfunctional. The National parliament has been baptized the rubberstamp for the actions of the executive and the president. The judiciary is not independent. The country’s constitution is there for use at the time president wishes. The president who is supposed to uphold the country’s constitution is the one tearing it apart. He removes elected governors at will. The circumstances of removing elected officials are not fulfilled according to the very constitution cited. The by-elections are not held within sixty day stipulated period. Is this democracy? No. one SPLM-DC official observed that the Constitution is the instrument of the president.
Having the constitution and upholding or implementing it are two different things. According to South Sudan constitution, democratic elections are supposed to be held on national, state and local levels. This is only on the paper. National elections were held in 2010 when the country was still united. County Commissioners, mayors and other local government representatives are directly elected as per the constitution. These officials are still being appointed by governors today contrary to what is stipulated. By-elections are not held since then. By-elections for ousted governors and deceased MPs are pending. The country’s election commission has not conducted any single election since formation. This is attributed to lack of funds to conduct those elections. The country is now reliant on the doctrine of necessity according to former minister of Justice when he was called by parliamentarians to answer questions regarding a caretaker governor who exceeded the sixty day period to organize by-election. The country has failed the first test of democracy for not holding elections.
The recent events of the past week are an eye opener to the people of this nation. The president promised a lean government since the day of independence. However, after years of doing nothing to make good that promise, he finally sacked the whole cabinet along with the Vice President. This can be explained in two ways. Either he was under pressure from the public and international community as advanced by some officials or he is trying to intimidate the would-be challengers in the coming race of twenty fifteen. There has been disquiet in the party over the past months and as far back as the time of killing of Isaiah Abrahams. There are also the 75 corrupt officials, the 8 million dollar Daffy Ltd transfer to Kenya and the SPLM basic documents head arch. The road is getting bumpier.
These happenings and many others show that the country is actually not ready for democracy. What does it mean for a country to be ready for democracy? It means that among other things, the population must be literate. This can deter unscrupulous and dishonest politicians who dupe and deceive the voters and take their liberties away. This was apparent in the elections of 2010 when the SPLM deceived the illiterate rural communities to vote for the “star” and not individuals of their choice. Also some candidates who have been in the struggle all a long were falsely accused of being pro Khartoum, appalling lies that may be repeated comes next elections.
According to the compilers of democracy index 2011 only twenty five countries are full democracies in the world. These obviously are The USA, UK, Norway, Australia and New Zealand among others. Even our neighbouring countries which have been independent for fifty years are nowhere in the list of flawed democracies. The African countries in the list of flawed democracies are South Africa, Benin, Namibia, Zambia, Cape Verde, Ghana, Mali, and Lesotho. This is only 14.815 per cent flawed democracies on the African continent.
If you would like to know the origins of democracy, it was born in Greece, grew up in Switzerland and died in American. That is the life span of democracy. However, the human rights, the cousin of democracy are understood as inalienable and fundamental rights which a person is inherently entitled simply because he/she is a human being. The declaration human rights in 1948 were a result of world war two and holocaust.
South Sudan also performs poorly on the human rights front. Many examples are abounding; the killing of innocent human beings in cold blood by politicians and people in authority, corruption that deprived citizens of basic needs like food, medicines, shelter, roads, electricity and rampant criminal activity in towns and in the countryside put the country in poor light of democracy and Human rights.
South Sudan is not even on the path of flawed democracy. This is because the country is not ready for this form of government. It will take several generations for the country to embrace democracy. One aspect that can help the country to embrace flawed, not full democracy is the level of literacy. Citizens who are literate can read schemes of dishonest politicians designed to take away peoples liberties.
The cooperation agreement was signed with emphasis on oil on part of south Sudan and international community. The Sudan wants to cancel the flow of oil through its territory, a clear violation of that agreement, a position expected by many people in South Sudan.
You can reach Malith Alier at his E-mail : alierabe21@yahoo.com.au
About Post Author
