Captain Mabior Garang: The Vision is not Dead (Part I)
The Vision is not Dead (I)
In the midst of a political crisis between President Salva Kiir and some senior members of his government and the ruling Sudanese Peoples Liberation Movement, there is every indication that all is not well in Southern Sudan. Africa’s newest nation seems to have learned little from the experiences that other African countries had at independence and the result is that Southern Sudan has so far failed to live up to the aspirations of its people. This is a view shared by Mabior Garang the son of the historic liberation hero the late Dr John Garang. Southern Sudanese “did not count on the emergence of an indigenous oppressor that would continue the program of marginalization and exploitation,” says Mabior in his take on the current crisis and how the country has been managed since independence in 2011.In an interview which revisits the liberation struggles of the Southern Sudanese, Mabior lashes out at corruption, and the SPLM government for deviating from its founding mission and principles. Politics has serious challenges but in the face of human suffering empathy dictates that something should be done says Mabior in justification of what he is doing at his level to help.
Mr. Garang, thanks so much for accepting to grant us this interview, South Sudan has been in the news and it appears for the wrong reasons, a power struggle between President Salvir Kiir and his Team, what is going on and how serious is this struggle to peace and unity in your country?
It is always an honor to have dialogue with Pan African Visions; I appreciate the opportunity to reach Comrades that want to know what’s happening in our corner of Africa.
Indeed South Sudan has been in the news and for the wrong reasons; it would appear that there is a power struggle between President Salva Kiir and his team. However, the problem goes deeper than this; in my humble analysis it is a crisis of ideology (as I have mentioned in my previous interview with Pan African Visions), it is a loss of direction that is not only a South Sudanese tragedy but an African one.
In brief the movement is in crisis because it has not addressed several questions that have divided it since its inception. One of these had to do with organizational structure; while the other had to do with the unity of our people. There was the dominant camp in the movement that contended that a political movement (representative of the people) could not be formed in Ethiopia in 1983, because the basis for forming democratic institutions did not exist. They suggested that the military element should take primacy over the political, and through the course of the struggle the armed element would create the necessary conditions for the coming into being of the political element. They argued that the relationship was a dialectical one.
These cadres believed that the military element would provide discipline as the movement was trying to bring together people from various walks of life to work together. There was amongst those that found themselves as refugees in Ethiopia (in 1983) engineers, doctors, peasants (farmers and cattle keepers) even former criminals; how do you unite such a mass of people with different interest and make them work towards the same objective? The solution was a politico military organization that would stress military discipline. They argued that if the political element took precedence too early then they would be transferring the parliament to the bush, and it would be a never ending argument. They would end up like the Lumumbaist in Zaire, with the leadership in hotels in Tanzania and China, while the combatants suffer in the bush (this problem is explained better by Che in his “Diary of the Revolutionary War in the Congo”).
The other divisive issue was the question of the unity of our people vs. the secession of Southern Sudan.; the two ideas where taken by some to be mutually exclusive. The question of unity was expounded through the vision of the new Sudan; according to this philosophy the problem in the country (Sudan) was not an issue of the South seceding but one of the imposition of one culture to define the Sudan (a nation rich in diversity). This; they explained, was the fundamental problem in the country. This imposition of one culture to the exclusion of the others is what has caused marginalization and this in turn causes rebellion, the secession of the South would not address the problem concretely (it would be a temporary solution and this is today apparent).
The founding fathers and mothers of the African liberation struggle realized that the old African society had been destroyed by the Arab and European slave trade and the colonization that followed. In addition, the nascent society that was being evolved was not one that could possibly serve the interests of the masses of the African people. The junior staff of the colonist where being trained to serve the interest of the respective European powers and not the interest of the masses of African people; therefore, the logical solution was a new society that would take the good from the old (pre-colonial Africa) and the contemporary (colonial Africa) and leave the bad to form a new society. A modern and new African society, one that best serves the interests of the masses of the African people; and makes them take their rightful place in the world.
The idea of the new society lost out over the new colonial society and over the years it has become entrenched in the process of classical neo colonialism. It is deplorable that today the economic indicators in most African countries are far worse than the period immediately following African independence (in the 1960), as if to suggest that the African masses where better off under the yoke of foreign oppressors. The failure across Africa to implement the vision of a new society has left the masses of African people trapped in humiliating poverty.
It is only once in a while that a leader comes along like the late John Garang (a selfless leader dedicated to the historical struggle of the people), and we are reminded of the need for a new society. And when they do, the leaders of the liberation movement have throughout time (consistently) been slandered, de-campaigned and outright murdered by those that are more concerned with independence and not necessarily social change. So the struggle rages on with the idea of liberation as the primary objective on one side and the achievement of flag independence as the objective on the other, the confrontation has at times been violent.
In the pre independence period the two camps had a common enemy so they worked together; however, when independence is achieved their interests rapidly deviated. The interest of those in the independence movement became maintaining political power at all costs (to save their privileged positions), while those in the liberation movement continue to have the same objective of social change, the restoration of the greatness of our people and the modernization of our societies (George Orwell described it best in his 1945 book – Animal Farm).
The truth is there need not be a contradiction between the vision of a new Society and African independence, not unless we are condemning our people to abject poverty forever. To get back to the question, what seems like a power struggle between President Salva Kiir and the cadres of the movement is how this struggle (Independence vs. Liberation) is being played out in our corner of Africa. Those that are only concerned with flag independence feel threatened by this vision (of liberating the masses). In an attempt to maintain their privileged positions in Juba, they have set out to misinform the citizens of our Republic that unity and the vision of new Sudan are mutually exclusive, a threat to the territorial integrity of the Republic of South Sudan and that we should abandon the idea because as they like to put it: “…we are now South Sudan…new Sudan is a dead ideology…”
They fear the vision of the new Sudan because it would result in the restructuring of power in Juba, the people would take control and not an oligarchy of oafs and stooges that are loyal to the head of state and who are all loyal to their own greed. This is why there has been no constitutional conference, the constitutional process has been compromised giving the head of state absolute power and “absolute power corrupts absolutely” as the saying goes. The vision of the new Sudan is also not in the interests of the Khartoum regime and so ironically the interests of Juba and Khartoum at the moment coincide.
This is where we are today as a movement!
How has President Kiir managed the country in his first term and why is he nervous about a challenge from his camp?
I say with all due respect to President Salva Kiir that he has completely mismanaged the country in his first term and during the interim period of the CPA. The SPLA – SPLM had clearly defined objectives that where abandoned in 2005 at the moment of victory and labeled as Garang ideas and those that would elucidate these ideas as “Garang boys”. When these are not Garang ideas but correct ideas behind which we have lost very many comrades over the course of the struggle. It is a betrayal to the spirit of these comrades for the objectives to be abandoned in such a whimsical manner. The SPLM had a document “The SPLM Strategic Framework for War to Peace Transition” that spelled out the program of the SPLM in the post war period. The document was abandoned.
It is now common knowledge that over the past eight years $ 4 billion has been embezzled in donor money while over $ 10 billion has been embezzled in oil revenues. There is an ever growing humanitarian crisis in Jong’lei State that if left unchecked could engulf the whole country. There are communities that are still living with (literally) Stone Age technologies in a country with billions ($) in oil revenues, a population of 8 million within an area that is 619,745 km². There are no basic services for the majority of our population, no decent healthcare, no food security, no clean water, no roads, no trade, no security of movement or property it is nothing short of a betrayal of the aspirations of our people.
The people of South Sudan opted for secession because they thought that the reason they were in abject poverty was Arab domination and the independence of the South would automatically solve all their problems. They did not count on the emergence of an indigenous oppressor that would continue the program of marginalization and exploitation. The imposition of one culture to define the nation is still being practiced in South Sudan, with some trying to define a diverse South Sudan through the lens of Nilotic speakers (excluding the other diversities in the Country).
The President has been given absolute power by a transitional constitution that was tailor made to suit his every whim. The President has absolute power as he can dismiss elected Governors and appoint new ones according Article 101 (r) and 101 (s); and if the parliament checks his powers he can adjourn or prorogue the National Legislature according to Article 101 (g). Anyone that criticizes the President also faces dismissal as we have recently seen with the recent sacking of two cabinet ministers, the Secretary General of the SPLM and the Vice President of the Republic. There are also journalist that have been tortured and murdered by unknown assailants after having criticized the president and/or government.
I don’t understand why the President is nervous? I believe that is a question best addressed to him. Perhaps he is nervous because as I have mentioned in previous interviews, and I repeat: “a posthumous coup has taken place…and has been made to appear like succession” the coup was carried out on the marginalized people of the old Sudan by the Northern and Southern elite. These elites came to the realization that the Sudanese Revolution was about to triumph and power would be restructured in Khartoum to the advantage of the marginalized communities. The elites would lose their privileged positions they have maintained since independence. It was not to the advantage of the Southern nor the Northern elite, and so they conspired to betray the Sudanese people.
The Southern elite took the aspirations of the people of South Sudan to have their own country where they would not be second class citizens and betrayed those aspirations. Those that have usurped power from the people in Juba are nervous because they know what they have done, and their intimidation tactics are not working; their propaganda tactics are also not working. They sense that the people are about to take back their movement and so they are desperate. The President has stopped working with the SPLM cadres and is now considering working with the opposition as is reflected by the recent appointment of several leaders of the opposition to the new cabinet (while true members are being dismissed).
What are the options that opponents of President Kiir dismissed from the government or suspended from the party have at their disposal?
The majority of those that were dismissed are still Members of Parliament, and others are respectable people in their communities, and so can still have an impact on the political process in the country. Those that feel victimized can follow the legal processes; they can challenge the decision of the President through the courts (as has been done by the SG of the SPLM through the Supreme Court). They could also opt to engage in national development through other means, as government is not the only institution through which one can contribute to national development.
Given the youthfulness of Southern Sudan, considering that the country is emerging from decades of fighting with Sudan prior to gaining independence, were expectations too high from President Kiir, are people not expecting results a little too soon considering where Southern Sudan came from?
Is too much been expected too soon from President Salva Kiir?
I don’t believe that we are expecting too much too soon, because the struggle was not carried out in a vacuum, the struggle has a history. The SPLA had vast areas under its administration during the bush war (larger than the current area under our administration), these were known as liberated territories, and displaced camps. The services to the people in these areas were much better than the conditions today, the leadership was with the people in the rural areas, and so could quickly address their needs. This is not so today, the leadership has become amputated from the people and so thy make uninformed decisions knowing that they don’t have to live with the consequences.
The experience of the bush war could have been transferred to the new political reality, and we could have learned lessons from other African countries that suffered similar challenges during their independence. The independence of South Sudan is coming at a time of great leaps in technological advancement and so we don’t have to reinvent the wheel. There are very many countries that gave us a helping hand during the struggle that could advise our young government. Instead the President is isolating potential allies in the region (to the extent of telling the SG of the UN: “…I am not under your command”).
There was tremendous outpouring of support from the world to the new nation, but all these opportunities have been squandered, and I believe it was done deliberately. I don’t believe it is due to where South Sudan came from that we are in the mess that we are in, our problems are self-inflicted. It is true that there is the legacy of the Arab and European Slave Trade, Colonialism and neo Colonialism; however, our liberation is our own responsibility. The SPLA guerillas forced the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and the Government to the negotiating table where SPLM defeated the NIF/NCP Government at the negotiating table. This great victory could not have been achieved except through exceptional organization of the masses of the Sudanese people. That we have failed to organize during peace time is an indication to me of a system overthrow, and a reversal of the victory of our people.
With regards to the security challenges, in addition to the issues that Southern Sudan has with Sudan, it is also disturbing to hear about violence between Southern Sudanese groups, what is the problem?
The problem (as I have mentioned above) is simple, the imposition of one culture to define the new state. The resulting marginalization is what fuels rebellions of those that feel disenfranchised. The current elites in South Sudan have shelved the CPA and the vision of new Sudan, within which are resolutions to problems of ‘wealth sharing’ and ‘power sharing’, ‘security arrangements’ and so on. The problems that plagued us in the old Sudan are still with us in the Republic of South Sudan, a new oppressor is emerging out of the ashes of the old (like an evil phoenix).
Overall how well would you say the SPLM has lived up to its founding principles and how well is it coping in keeping the legacy of its founding father the late Dr. John Garang?
The SPLM has abandoned its founding principles the corner stone of which was the vision of the new Sudan; we have failed to articulate the vision within the context of the new geopolitical reality. It is true that during the course of the armed struggle the new Sudan vision was articulated within the context of a united, democratic and secular Sudan. However, the failure of the two parties to agree on the nature of the state (secular vs. theocratic state) has led to a two state solution through the Southern Sudanese exercise of their right to self-determination. The vision of the new Sudan and the independence of the South are not mutually exclusive; the vision of the new Sudan can still be pursued within the territorial boundaries of what is now the Republic of South Sudan. The new Sudan is not a place on the map; it is a vision and political philosophy comparable to the millennium goals, the Magna Carta, or the Declaration on the rights of Man.
In addition the SPLM was fighting against forced Arabisation and forced Islamisation, the struggle was successful because of the overwhelming support of African nations. The movement in its (pre-independence) foreign policy convinced African governments of the danger posed by the threat of Islamic Jihad. The SPLM – North today and other revolutionary forces in North Sudan are still fighting this noble struggle, and it seems Africa has abandoned them. The SPLM in the South should be championing the cause of the SPLM – North not only as a matter of principle, but even as a matter of national security. The SPLM in South Sudan should be supporting the SPLM – North and justifying it to the AU and UN. The independence of South Sudan will be insignificant if the people of Abyei, Southern Khordofan, Southern Blue Nile, Darfur and all other Africans are still threatened by forced Arabisation and Islamisation (in fact no one is safe in Africa as we have seen recently in Mali).
The late Dr. John Garang was a product of the African liberation struggle; he lived in Tanzania and the USA during the 1960’s when he was a university student. Tanzania was supporting the African liberation movements at the time, while the USA was at the height of the Civil Rights Movement. This is the background from which he drew his inspiration, he was an Agricultural Economist and the leader of a Liberation Movement like Amilcar Cabral was. The SPLM history is not that dissimilar to the history of the PAIGC in Guinea Bissau or that of FRELIMO in Mozambique, and so I would not call it the legacy of the late Dr. John Garang. It is the legacy of the historical struggle of the African people, and it has manifested itself at different times and places in Africa. The struggle continues!
A word on the opposition, the press and the civil society, how effective are there as a tool in checking potential excesses from the President and the SPLM government?
There is no credible opposition that has evolved as of yet, perhaps the unease that we are currently experiencing are the birth pangs of the birth of the opposition. The traditional opposition parties inherited from the old Sudan are subservient to the SPLM; they exist by the good will of the SPLM and so can’t be effective. The press and the civil society face intimidation, arbitrary arrest and extra judicial killing by the security forces if they are critical of the President or his administration. The killing and intimidation of journalist has been widely reported in the media so I will not bore you with a list of names.
There is certainly much to criticize but there should also be reasons to remain optimistic and positive about Sudan, can you tell us some of those developments or things that should make Southern Sudanese remain optimistic about the future?
The People of South Sudan are the greatest hope of South Sudan, our people are a very resolute people that have lived through centuries of foreign domination and are still here (since pharaonic times). It was the people of South Sudan that mobilized all the resources available to them for their liberation and who achieved the current victory that is being hijacked by an unscrupulous bourgeoisified elite that have no interest in the liberation of our people. They would rather thrive on the ignorance of the masses.
The South Sudan Legislative Assembly, the representatives of the people of South Sudan are also a great hope for our people. They are the ones mandated by the constitution to check any excesses by the executive that may arise; and though they have been silent in the past, recent events show that they may be a force to reckon with. There are also the SPLM delegates of the National Convention, the highest body in the SPLM. There are a lot of challenges, but where there are challenges there are also opportunities.
On a personal note do you have plans to become more actively involved in politics, maybe run for office at the local level or for a parliamentary seat?
It is a catch 22, because who in their rightful mind would want to become actively involved in politics? I would rather get married raise children and take care of my family. There is a bad culture in South Sudan and Africa of entering politics to embezzle public funds. I am; however, not lacking anything and can find work and business anywhere. The problem is when one sees human suffering empathy dictates that I must do something. This is what I am doing within the constraints of the reality of my current situation.
Captain Garang Mabior de Mabior: A CALL FOR FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN SOUTH SUDAN
“We have been independent for a year now, yet I am afraid the country has started on the wrong foot,” argues Capt. Mabior Garang de Mabior, the eldest son of the Founding Father for South Sudan, in this essay where he shares his thoughts on the way forward for the country. “In order to put our country back on the right track, change is needed and the sooner this is done, the better for our young state.”
(Juba, South Sudan) – The nascent Republic of South Sudan has started on the wrong foot, and the sooner change manifests the better. If we wait for the current state of obscurantism to become entrenched, we would be: “…not fighting the Alligator on the banks, only to go and fight it in the middle of the river…”, as the late Samora Machel once put it. The current state of affairs must be resisted and reversed by any means necessary in order for the Republic to survive.
As members and participants in the Liberation Movement, we know that the armed struggle was waged because we wanted to end injustice. The fact that there is injustice today in the Republic is nothing short of a betrayal of the aspirations of the citizens of South Sudan. This is not a call to arms. We are committed to peaceful dialogue and to ‘non-violence’ as the most superior method of political intercourse, and shall spare no efforts in exhausting these methods. Our movement, the SPLM (which is now the leading political party in South Sudan) has deviated from the primary objective we all sacrificed for; we need to talk about it. It was Dr Martin Luther King Jr. that once said: “…injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere…”
Just as a reminder, the SPLA went to war for the following reasons:
1) To protect the integrity of our cultures from Arabisation and Islamisation; 2) we fought to stop economic marginalisation of our people and region; 3) to stop racial denigration of our people and their ways of living; 4) most importantly, we wanted our people to have more and better access to quality development, and that includes quality education, health, modernisation, and good governance. The list is endless.
We have been independent for a year now, yet I am afraid the country has started on the wrong foot. In order to put our country back on the right track, change is needed and the sooner this is done, the better for our young state. Human resource development, modernisation of civil society, and the restoration of the greatness of our people should have taken priority. However, the new Republic has missed a unique opportunity to engender a qualitatively different nation state in Africa; one that is built on different parameters, as articulated tirelessly by our late hero, Dr John Garang De Mabior.
We are very lucky to have attained independence during the information-age where internet technology brings needed information to the doors where it is needed the most. Leading South Sudan in a better direction does not entail rocket science. It could be as simple as browsing Wikipedia to get the most basic information on how to lead our people. Yes, we can easily Google information to help develop the best of our own, picking up the best ideas and learning from the pitfalls without making the same costly errors.
At the heart of the SPLM’s vision of statehood was a qualitative lift from the state building models taken from other post-colonial states in Africa. Despite that vision as inspiration, the new Republic in the hands of new elites has become the worst example of a dependent state. It is too fragile to stay on the pillars of true independence and uphold its sovereignty in decision-making. Our country is too beholden to outside powers for everything, including basic economic and social policy. It is the very thing the SPLM had sought to avoid; a great opportunity squandered.
The Republic has started on uneven ground because it has been founded on a sectarian basis. The concept of ‘unity’ has been misconceived and used to demonise constructive dissenting voices in the new nation. Constructive criticisms at all times is associated with lack of patriotism and sometimes likened to treason. The idea of secession has also been understood in a way that its context sometimes confuses many. This has resulted in the establishment of a quasi-African Nation State.
South Sudan is devoid of a true Pan African identity. It is characterized by tribal divisions, thus making equitable sharing of the nation’s resources a daunting task. The results of sectarian politics are the emergence of a new form of marginalisation and exploitation. The same policy of ‘divide and rule’ that was employed by the former enemy has now been carried over to the new Republic. This begs the question: “…if we cannot be different from those in Khartoum, why are we in Juba?” If we cannot become different from our former enemies whom we thought were wrong, why can’t we just return home and apologize?
In the same manner that successive governments in Khartoum have used Arabism to divide the Sudanese People; the new Republic is now using tribalism to divide the People of South Sudan. To quote the late Dr John Garang “…in the South, people have been politicized along tribal lines resulting in ridiculous slogans such as ‘Dinka Unity’, ‘Great Equatoria’, ‘Bari Speakers’, ‘Luo Unity’ and so forth…” He then continues: “…tomorrow when these divisions become outdated, the oppressor will contrive other ingenious schemes for keeping the Sudanese People and their just struggle divided and weak…”
The untimely death of the founding Commander in Chief of the SPLA 21 days after taking the oath of office as the first Vice President of the Republic of Sudan, and President of the Government of South Sudan, was undoubtedly a big blow to the people’s movement, and to this day there are still more questions than answers surrounding his mysterious demise. That said, we should not be fooled by the counter-productive propaganda that suggests everything would be perfect had Dr. John Garang not perished. This is to undermine the efforts of the Sudanese People who contributed the lion’s share towards their liberation, in terms of material resources, including their own sons and daughters.
The idea that there shall never be likes of Dr. John Garang for the next one hundred years is propaganda designed to create insecurity, and divert attention away from the realities at hand. The tragic loss of John Garang was without question a big blow to the new Republic. With that in mind, it should not be an excuse for rampant corruption, absence of the rule of law, lack of basic services to the people, or lack of good governance across the ten states. The administrational anarchy is further exacerbated by an increasingly authoritarian regime which reacts to criticism rather than act towards reform. The current state of collapse of all sectors in South Sudan should not be blamed on the loss of our leader. We should take it as a deliberate program of the leading clique in Juba not to serve the interests of our people.
A Diaspora Community Coordinating Council (CCC) that was based in Nairobi and known to have had ties with Khartoum has hijacked the People’s Movement. This group has been sabotaging the noble efforts of our people to liberate themselves since the days of the bush war. They were (infamously) known as the Wimpy Boys (today we know them as “security”). The CCC’s emerged in South Sudan and other African countries as a by-product of colonization and the rural – urban drift. A domestic Diaspora was created by this migration of people from different villages, people who found themselves in unfamiliar urban centres where their social values were under constant threat from the realities of industrialized society.
The main purpose of the CCC was to ensure that the next generation would have a forum through which they could inherit their social values, their language and customs. The CCC would coordinate to ensure that formalities have been met according to traditional customs. The CCC’s became increasingly politicized as the ‘winds of change’ swept through Africa, and as the independence movements became victorious. After independence was won, the different CCC’s of the various communities would be locked in a struggle for power in the centre, pitting the communities at the peripheries against one another. These are communities who had no grudges against each other until the upsurge of divisive politics. In the case of the old Sudan, people had been divided into Northern and Southern Sudanese, Africans or Arabs, Muslims or Christians. The Republic of South Sudan has inherited divisions imposed on us by successive colonial and neo-colonial governments. The policy of Nimerism is still alive when the people of South Sudan allow themselves to be divided against one another as: Bar el ghazal, Equatoria, and Upper Nile.
The SPLA was founded as a politico-military organization; this means that the combatant was primarily a political activist. This mode of organisational structure was necessary due to the objective historical realities of the time. There was the field Commander at the front and the Political Commissar in the liberated areas. As the Movement grew and became strong she became a victim of her own success. The movement gained in quantity of members, while declining in the quality of membership. The Sudanese Renaissance with every victory would begin to attract the Southern Elite, whom up to this point in history had never been actively part of the armed struggle. These Comrades would come to the revolution with elitist attitudes inherited from their colonial education, demanding promotion based on this basis. Contrary to these expectations; the revolution had its own system of rewards and punishment. Reward was based on merit not social status, and punishment was based on martial law.
The majority of the southern elite joined the SPLA. They fought gallantly alongside their brothers and sisters irrespective of social status, and many earned (with blood, sweat and tears) their current positions. However, a slim minority with ties to CCC’s in London and Washington DC had come (to join) on a mission to infiltrate and hijack the people’s movement. They came with Western socialisation and values, and used their positions of prestige to promote tribal divisions as a way to leverage for positions of responsibility. In order to neutralise this threat these Comrades were deployed in external wings known as SPLM chapters and their task would be to lobby powerful players in the international community behind the cause of the marginalised Sudanese people. The majority of these external chapters did their work with revolutionary devotion, and their work bore fruit as the SPLA cause became more accepted over the years. There was one particular
external chapter (based in Nairobi) that had other plans, the wheels of which had already been set in motion by the time of the signing of the agreement.
The signing of the CPA ushered in a new era for the historical struggle of the people of the Sudan. It was a time of great promise for all Sudanese. For the first time in their history, the Sudanese people were able to organize an armed struggle that forced the minority elite clique in Khartoum (that had ruled since independence) to the negotiating table, where they were thoroughly defeated by the SPLM negotiating team. This was not the only historical first. It also, happened to be the first time in the history of the old Sudan that the interests of the Northern Elite have coincided with those of their Southern counterparts. The two groups came to the realisation that if they did not come together, the marginalised masses at the peripheries would take power in the centre. The aspirations of the Sudanese people were thus betrayed, in order to forestall the logical conclusion of the struggle; a Sudanese Renaissance.
The true SPLA/M still survives in the Republic of Sudan, and they continue to wage the just struggle. The Other Armed Groups (OAGs) and the SPLA are locked in a power struggle for control of the national army, while the SPLM is dominated by (former) members of external chapters and eleventh hour defectors from the NIF/NCP. The Southern Elite has taken advantage of the aspirations of the people of South Sudan, who have sacrificed everything, and have yearned for so long to have control of their own destiny. The elite have in the process shown themselves as the ‘midwives’ that delivered the new Republic, while all along betraying the people’s aspirations.
The notion of all power belonging to the people has been completely usurped! Instead of using the goodwill expressed by the people when they affirmed their sovereignty by voting in overwhelming numbers for independence, the new elite has instead focused their efforts on grotesque accumulation of wealth. The popular goodwill could have been mobilised again in a popular constitutional referendum, as many people of goodwill had urged the SPLM to do. That is another opportunity squandered.
The infiltration of the people’s movement occurred on a technicality; a constitutional clause in international politics. This is the exclusion of the armed forces from the realm of politics; making the SPLA (a People’s Movement) a National Army, while the SPLM (the chapters) becomes one of many political parties. It is the mismanagement of this transition that has created the greatest confusion in the People’s Movement. The movement came to power divided, with no instrument with which to assume power. The true cadres of the movement suddenly found themselves out of action politically, being confined to the GHQ’s by the constitution.
The SPLM national secretariat has been taken over by the various members of the CCC’s that were in the external chapters, the most powerful being the members of Nairobi (aka The Wimpy Group). These are individuals who are amputated from their villages and socialised in the western world. They make uninformed decisions in Juba, with the knowledge that they won’t have to live with the consequences. The historical mechanisms for making decisions that were painstakingly evolved by the people’s movement have been abandoned; all decisions are now made by a Politburo that does not reflect the true face of the people’s movement.
The new elite consider the “independence” of South Sudan as a project, an end in itself. Indeed, some have even called for the SPLM to change its name since it had “achieved its objective”! They might as well have changed it! The fact is that the struggle for a New Sudan, a country that is fundamentally transformed both in form and content, rages on in other marginalized parts of the country. Those waging that struggle are the ones advancing the SPLA/M program and vision of change. It is tragic that our leadership of the Movement fail to recognize this.
What is the solution?
The solution is for those who are the true custodians of the people’s struggle for social justice to engage those who have assumed power in dialogue. To use non combative means of putting pressure on them to change the pernicious course they have taken and come back to engage in a serious and honest national dialogue involving all South Sudanese Social and Political groups. That includes involving all the beneficiaries of the revolution in shaping the future of our country. If they resist dialogue then walk out en masse and leave any reactionary element within the movement exposed.
This may seem as an extreme or unreasonable solution to many Comrades that may feel they can’t abandon what they sacrificed so much for; romanticism may not permit them to see the grim reality before us. A posthumous coup has been made to appear like succession. If the objectives of the movement have been abandoned, if the representative bodies of the people’s movement never meet, if the Politburo is being infiltrated by pseudo SPLM; then what movement is left? All that remains is the form devoid of content. The reactionaries (historically linked to Khartoum) are dismantling the people’s movement from within, reversing the hard won victories of our just struggle. Infiltrators posing as the true representatives of the people’s movement are tarnishing the impeccable revolutionary record of the SPLA/M.
The community organizations referred to here as CCC’s are the civil society organizations of the people of South Sudan; and could provide another approach to solving the problem. These civil society bodies have the capacity to save the Republic of South Sudan from descending into anarchy. These same organizations where the instruments through which the People’s Movement mobilized resources for the war effort. In peace time they were mobilized for the elections and the referendum that brought the first Republic of South Sudan into existence. They can be mobilized once again in an effort to put pressure on the current regime to change its ways.
It is a tragedy that today these community organizations are disorganized, thus serving the interests of our enemies. Instead of focusing on developing our people these community bodies have focused their attention on dividing our people in a futile struggle for power. Those with narrow minds and sectarian views have been allowed to dominate these forums, yet the most sophisticated weapon that we have against our enemy is the unity of our people.
It is the duty of every patriotic South Sudanese to take the fight to their respective CCC’s. Narrow-mindedness and open-mindedness have no nationality. It is the duty of every open-minded citizen to fight these narrow minds that have dominated these forums with their divisive dialogue. The current dialogue in these forums is dangerous and could lead our nascent republic to oblivion. The dialogue should be refocused to speak to the restoration of our people’s greatness. Hate speech should be defined and criminalized, and all efforts should be made to enforce this. That is the way we can get out of this perilous situation and build a new society.
To sum it up, the leaders of the new Republic have abandoned the vision and program of the people’s movement. Nowhere in Africa has a liberation movement, so quickly and so determinedly abandoned its program and its platform. It is a tragedy when considering the promise of change, the expectations of our people, and the reverence that the SPLM had had among Africans and the world in general. Here was a movement that took as its starting point the enslavement of Africans from the time Alexander penetrated the Nile Valley to the present day! Its loss of direction is not only a Sudanese tragedy but an African one as well.
The people in our cattle camps and villages are losing patience; they are increasingly alienated from their movement, with some communities even becoming openly hostile. The people are beginning to feel they have been betrayed by their movement and are losing hope in the promise of a new society. This is the objective of the infiltrator, to use their new found positions in the movement to embezzle funds with which to build their true political party. In the process they are causing irreparable damage to the movement in the eyes of the people. If they are allowed to leave en masse (and they will) with all the embezzled funds, leaving the people’s movement socially and politically bankrupt; they will have the initiative and with their sectarian approach to society and politics, the Republic will be doomed. The progressive element within the people’s movement must pre-empt this move and leave en masse. It must take the people along and call for a national dialogue to determine the future of the country.
I end this discourse by putting forth some propositions inspired by John Garang de Mabior’s speech at Koka Dam, 20/05/1986 in the context of our current realities, in summary:
1. It is the people of South Sudan that can end the current failure of the state and bring stability to the Republic. The true South Sudanese patriot that wants peace and stability and a new society, must identify and organize themselves to put pressure on the current government, to start a true and honest dialogue to save our Republic.
2. The solutions to the fundamental problems of South Sudan are not beyond attainment, we only need to be frank and serious. Speaking freely is an embodiment of an individual’s liberty. If you refuse to call a spade a spade then you are not free, and that is our position.
3. The necessary conditions still exist for stopping South Sudan from descending into the abyss, which is not in the interest of any peace loving South Sudanese, the region, or the world.
In conclusion, the current constitution is illegal. The interim constitution of GoSS was intended for the interim period of the CPA as its name suggests; that constitution expired with that period. There should have been as the first order of business in the Republic, a constitutional conference involving all social and political forces in the country. This is the best way to draft a constitution that would be reflective of the social, political and cultural realities of the Republic of South Sudan. A committee of a few drafted the current constitution. It makes a mockery of one of the principal tenets of democracy; separation of powers.
The Judiciary of our Republic is in shambles, leaving the country with no justice system. There are people languishing in South Sudanese jails serving three years for adultery, while murderers run the streets. The Legislature is toothless as the fraudulent constitution gives the Executive more power than Parliament, making it nothing but a rubber stamp parliament. And if the Judicial and Legislative are dysfunctional, then in essence we don’t have a government.
The matter is made worse by the fact that the people’s security forces have turned on the very people they are supposed to protect, thus creating insecurity in the process. They arbitrarily arrest citizens who express their views freely, going as far as torture and extra judicial killings. There exists currently two scenarios in our country; either we have an honest and free dialogue on the future of our Republic, or we can descend into the abyss.
Captain Mabior Garang de Mabior is the eldest son of the late Dr. John Garang de Mabior, the Founding Father for South Sudan
About Post Author
