Dr. John Garang and the Debate on Federalism in South Sudan
6 min readBy PaanLuel Wel, Juba.
The rebels are calling for a federal system in South Sudan; Equatorian intellectuals have renewed their advocacy for federalism. Governor Wani kong’a of Central Equatoria State is forming a delegation to represent their views in the Addis Talks.
Bahr el Ghazal Youth have released a press statement denouncing the call for federalism, but instead back decentralization.
President Kiir has concluded that the decision whether or not to adopt a federal system in South Sudan belongs to the people, not leaders alone. Apparently, he is calling for a referendum on the issue.
Given this uptick on the call for “Federalism” in South Sudan, some people might be wondering/interested to know what Dr. John Garang take would be, if any, on the current debate, long preferred by Equatorians and now being half-heartedly championed by the rebels under Dr. Riek Machar.
Fortunately, Garang had touched on it, and he appeared to have suggested decentralization as the solution to the fundamental problem of governance in South Sudan, what he called “a new Sudanese political dispensation“ characterize by “full inclusiveness of all and marginalization of none.” (Garang, 2005).
First, however, Garang, too, was very explicit, if not prophetic, about the future problem of the republic of South Sudan if it would not be governed well. By referencing the problem of the historical Sudan, Garang foretold the fundamental problem of South Sudan in the following startling words:
“By now, it should be clear to all that what is important—the challenge and the solution to the Sudanese’ fundamental problem—is not this category of people such as the Arabs, the Africans, the Christians and the Muslims. No, it is not. The solution to the Sudanese’ fundamental problem is to create a stable Sudanese state with a self-sustaining economy and a stable all-inclusive governance or government, in which all different ethnic groups, different tribes, various religious groups, agree upon that form of governance and are equal stakeholders with equal opportunities in the political, economic and social fields—a state in which they are able to coexist with harmony and development. This challenge is equally true of the whole of the Sudan as it is of Southern Sudan, because we are going to form a government of Southern Sudan. It must be inclusive—an all-inclusive government—of all ethnic groups, of all tribes, of all religious faiths, so that they are equal stakeholders with equal opportunities in the political, economic and social fields—a state in which all Southern Sudanese are able to coexist with communal harmony, economic development and social prosperity.Otherwise, you will also have a problem of Southern Sudan: you will now really have the problem of Southern Sudan, not before.“ (Garang, 2004)
And here is the relevant part on what Garang had to say/contribute to the current debate on Federalism:
“As a Movement that has been fighting against the marginalization of others, we shall not tolerate the exclusion of anybody from this process…surely, by democratic, we do not mean return to the sham procedural democracy of the past, which was but a camouflage for the perpetuation of vested interests. In that sham democracy, civil rights were subject to the whims of rulers; the majority of Sudanese in the regions remained peripheral to the center of power and was treated as an expendable quantum only to be manipulated through political trickery and double-dealing…democracy, whether in the North or South, should no longer be viewed as solely a struggle for power but rather as a competition on providing good governance, development and delivery of social services for our people and restoring the dignity and worth of every man and woman…the SPLM views the agreement as a prelude to the beginning of the process of democratic transformation, a paradigm shift in socio-economic development of the country, and observance of human rights and freedoms…as regards the GOSS, it is our intention to devolve power to the maximum so that decisions shall be taken at the lowest possible level of governance. We have not wrested power from a hegemonizing national centre to allocate it to another centre that is based on the political elites of the South. Power shall be exercised by the states and indeed by local governments within the states. Armed with the necessary powers and equipped with the needed resources, this style of governance shall ensure a more efficient delivery system of development and services. The principle of decentralization of power is a time-honored principle since it responds to local social and economic situations, not least amongst which is the neutralization of the centrifugal forces to which I have just alluded and which are generally the consequence of failure by Central Authority to address local problems and concerns. Such local problems and concerns cannot be effectively addressed from the Centre since such Authorities are far away from the people; they can only be effectively addressed by empowered local authorities that have both the necessary power of decision-making and the necessary resources to implement such decisions. In the words of Alexander Hamilton: ‘There are certain social principles in human nature from which we may draw the most solid conclusions with respect to the conduct of individuals and communities. We love our families more than our neighbours; we love our neighbours more than our countrymen in general.’ ‘The human affections’, Hamilton says, ‘like the solar heat, lose their intensity as they depart from the centre and become languid in proportion to the expansion of the circle on which they act.’ This is the vision that has guided one of the foremost proponents of government decentralization. As you can see the principle of decentralization is common sense, but unfortunately common sense is not common.“ (Garang, 2004/2005)
So, the pertinent question is: was Garang for federalism or just decentralization? What is the difference between decentralization–taking towns to the villages–and federalism? Some people are arguing that South Sudan is already a federal state and what the advocates of federalism are calling for is nothing less than a Confederacy–a union of two or more fully independent nations.
So, what is the what, to quote Valentino Achaak Deng’s book? Is it all about neo-Kokora-ism as Dinkas tend to perceive it or are they simply overreacting to a genuine call for good governance and democracy in South Sudan?
Is Riek Machar, by advocating for a federal system, just being opportunistic? Is he trying to claim the title of the father of federalism in South Sudan just as he had done with the call for self-determination?
Is this all about politicians at their best or a real debate on a substantive topic as a way forward to the current turmoil in our country?
I will try to provide a deeper analysis of this subject at a later date if federalism would indeed be picked up by the IGAD mediators in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Otherwise, my preferred system of governance is Tribocracy, not just for South Sudan but the Sub-Saharan Africa.
About Post Author
