This is no time for South Sudan to mince reforms
By Malith Alier, Juba
Reforms here mean reorganisation or modification of the existing institutions and structures of the government including the overlap in the military and civil and constitutional structures
Another term that may be used in this article is overhaul that means overtake, leave behind or go past the existing structures or institutions of the government of South Sudan
It has been reiterated time and again on many fora that South Sudan needs reforms particularly democratic reforms; truncating the army (the SPLA) from the party (SPLM) as well as reforming other institutions to enhance democratic transformation in the country.
Reforms of any form and shape are a hallmark that serves to better that society in various ways and have the potential to unleash the best practice across generations. This is to say that ignoring reforms can have unintended consequences which no one wishes to experience.
In any society, there are antireform groups or hardliners and pro reforms groups. In some countries, these roles have been taken up by political parties where one comes across far right, far left and centre right or centre left parties. Each a party with certain ideology is in government, it tries to advance that ideology only to be reversed later when it is out of the government.
The SPLM led government is never clear on the issue of basic reforms necessary in a democracy. When the SPLM/SPLA former rebels joined the Sudan government in 2005, they first met the usual bickering in politics by National Congress Party (NCP) whose political ideology differs very much in terms of party interests and the larger national interest including implementation of the CPA. In being associated with NCP, the SPLM inadvertently adopted some aspects of that party ideology to be applied in independent South Sudan.
What is observed so far seemed to suggest that the hardliners in the SPLM have carried the day. This group includes those who were expelled from the party at different times but were later reinstated.
The comrades in the government for close to ten years did not see the reason why separating the SPLA from the SPLM was necessary. If anything, it was a lip service mantra to shield the party from criticism.
Only until last month, the President of the Republic instituted an order that requires former SPLA officers now holding constitutional (elected) posts and those in the public serve to drop their former military titles such as general, brigadier, colonel and so forth. This is what this author referred to as mincing reforms.
Why did it take so long for the president to recognise that this was the first step he should have taken to delink the two institutions early in time for the sake of democracy and state building?
The general, colonel or captain so and so who is no longer in the military uniform has become problematic to the people of South Sudan in many ways. At one stage, the South Sudan Muslim community reminded their secretary who was fond of using his military rank while carrying out Muslim religious affairs to either be a full army officer or civilian religious person but not both.
The continuation to be in the military was justified by the fact that the issues of separation were incomplete, the border between north and south Sudan and other borders because the country has many neighbours with un-demarcated boundaries. Another reason hinges on the benefits these folks get in the army like salaries and above all the prestige derived from being in the liberation generation. Neverthless, the former soldiers are aging very fast and may not be the ones to do much in future military confrontation with any neighbour. Young and energetic officers are required for that purpose.
The reluctance not to fully discharge the former SPLA officers has other consequences like inflated army payroll. Second, the un-discharged former officers may masquerade as active army officers and carryout criminal acts but claim innocence later. Sadly, it is not uncommon to find civilians on armed forces payroll on national and state levels for the sole reason of receiving salaries. There must be a complete separation of the civilian person and a military guy for the above mentioned reasons unless the country has military reservists. This is not currently application in South Sudan.
Despite the good intention by the president, nobody understood essence of dropping their former military titles? The evidence suggests that nobody would actually listen or implement it in real time. South Sudanese are very funny people when it comes to what is relevant. There are well educated people high up in the government who still called South Sudan “Southern Sudan” they are not aware that this name was altered on 9 July 2011, the day Southern Sudan attained independence.
There’re people who confuse languages and in the process duplicate and distort the meaning of words in different languages. Take for example “Firik awel” in Arabic which is directly translated in to English as first lieutenant General which is direct translation from Arabic to English. The same title is simply “general” in English. As you know the military commissioned officers’ titles from lower to highest are, second lieutenant, lieutenant, captain, major, lieutenant colonel, colonel, brigadier, major general, lieutenant general and finally general. These are the commonly used ranks in the military in South Sudan anything else is a supernumerary and demonstrates ignorance of the current affairs in the nation.
The South Sudan television (SSTV) which is the government mouthpiece is still calling the president of the republic “His Excellency general Salva Kiir Mayardit” worse still he has host of other titles including Commander in chief of the SPLA and Supreme Commander of other organised forces. This is the way South Sudanese are superfluous with the jargon and several titles unnecessary at this level. Those who are fond of using these jargons are like school children unfamiliar with new vocabulary and would want to repeat it over and over again to make sure that they get it right into their memory forever.
The confusion in translation to various languages in South Sudan needs everyone to double or triple check a particular language in everyday use. This is particularly so in official communication like on SSTV because foreigners and even well informed nationals can rate your service poorly and imbue you with a bad reputation. The former deputy minister of interior Mr. Salva Gengdit reminded South Sudanese to simply use general instead of first lieutenant general which is nonexistent in the system.
Other areas where reforms or complete system overhaul is required are many; the constitution, judiciary, local government, wildlife and fire brigade, land and the civil service.
The current constitution has granted too much power to one man in the country, the president and was therefore, discredited for that reason. The commission who drafted the document and the lawmakers who endorsed it are both to blame for this anomaly.
The local government act has gone unimplemented for the duration of independence. No one is fully aware of what local government means in the lives of citizens. Whatever, was stipulated exists only on paper and this spells its doomed nature. It unfortunately becomes a practice to elect chiefs in some parts of the country but not County Commissioners as required. Chiefs have a dual role of being judges and civil servants at the same time. A government has three arms i.e. the legislature, judiciary and executive. Nobody should be in any two. This is to guarantee the independence of each arm from the other.
Land is an important factor of production and is often a major source of conflict among communities. If not managed well, it can cost the country dearly. South Sudan is blessed with abundant land but managing it proved an obstacle in recent years. The concept of land being a community asset compounded this problem in many states. With just a small population of ten million which is about 13 people per square kilometre, south Sudan is among the least populated in the region. Therefore, the government should reform land policies to enable farmers to access land for all kinds of production necessary to feed the nation. Food importations from neighbouring countries costs South Sudan the hard earn foreign currency that should be used to import medicines and defence materiel.
The Land Commission like other nominal government organs has failed to initiate economically viable land policies to suit the current needs without impacting on future needs. Nowhere is this failure more compounded than the cities where nationals are regarded as foreigners and denied pieces of land for settlement. Juba is the most cosmopolitan in the whole country but is the top most notorious city with everyday land cases that are avoidable had land policies been set clear. The government officials particularly the central Equatoria officials have invented the term land grabbing but fall short of addressing the root causes of the so-called land grabbing.
Reforms are necessary for renewal. Any country that resists reforms courts trouble in the long run. Those in the SPLM who are hardliners and antireform should remember that there is a saying in Kiswahili, “mabadaliko hunadumu” roughly translated as change is the only lasting phenomenon. Even the South African ANC has undergone changes that have saved it to this day.
On the other hand, the Kenyan KANU that resisted change for forty years from 1963 to 2002 is no longer in existence. You can see the difference change brings about, survival or death. Fear of change is therefore, not an option if survival is to be guaranteed.
About Post Author
