What is federalism: Respond to Kuir E Garang facebook’s status on federalism
10 min readBy Amer Mayen Dhieu, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
“I just realised that, both the proponents and opponents of federalism in South Sudan have not advanced any single rational argument to why they take the positions they take. The system is opposed or proposed not on what it would do to the citizens but the proponents and opponents self-interest. Our understanding of federalism is either at kindergarten level or completely a randomly conceptualised, interest-driven mental creation. I live in a country with a federal system” Kuir E Garang: 2nd of July, 2014.
Notably, International School of Thoughts have launch very absorbing international political theories that are appraises to accord the differences in geopolitic and helps restored world’s orders. Without single theory preferably then the other, there are still few strong theories that have catches global attention. Theories such as “human right”, democracy, liberalism and other westernised theories have already captured much of Europe, America and Australia’s attention over the past centuries, however in Africa and Middle East, the interest is recent. Shifting to these remarkable political thoughts is seen and term by international affairs scholars as “third wave” of democracy in African and Middle Eastern countries. This have resulted in dreadful political turmoils that nearly shred the countries like Libya, Tunisia and Egypt apart. It will not surprise me to see South Sudanese Youth scrimmaging along the line of this political thinking called Federalism. One thing I don’t posses from international affairs’ scholars who introduce these political thoughts at the first place is their wilful ignorance of the impact of ethnicity, geographical environment, economy and the mentality of people living around the area. Many South Sudanese’s scholars and optional political analysts are doing the same too. I believed this is what constitute your (Kuir E Garang’s) status. But before I come on that scene, let me highlight the historical background of federalism, what prompt the founder of this political thoughts/theory and how does it come into existence.
In original historical context; what is federalism?
Federalism was a radical political term coined up by a philosopher called Johannese Althusius. His view on federalism was impel by his belief that sovereignty belong to the people not the government and that states hosting people with share values and similar set of believes or language should be given powers to govern themselves. His interest was to politically involve the states in decision making, which many International relation scholars seen as another way of state claiming their sovereignty from central government. (Note: Soveriengty is authority of state to govern itself or another state). Johannese’s argument comes about with motives of redefining politic “from activities only relating to the central government, rather to, “one that permeates many aspects of social life that central government thinks are well below their level. Johannese believes that people are “sociable and in order to peaceably lives together, they must be happy to share goods and service and respect one another’s right” Johannese continue with this argument, arguing that for people to share goods and services, there must be conscionable of individuals’ conscience which begin at state level. According to Johannese Individuals can only recognise their shares needs, services and rights only at state’s level and therefore states should be given their sovereignty from central government to be able to provide immediate and legitimate needs to its people. In summary of Johannese view of federalism, human’s social aspects such as traditional dances, building cities base on traditional beliefs, shared needs such as party, clubbing, or other traditional culture and other set of values that contribute to peaceful living of group of individuals. These individuals lives in state not central government and for this peaceful living to continue its survival among individuals, there must be federal system where states are given their sovereignty to perform their share beliefs and values at their own cities.
What happen after the introduction of Johannese’ view of federalism. Did Western Countries buy it?
Kuir E Garang lives in a country with federal system and so do I and other South Sudanese living in Western countries. Dr Riek himself was once a resident of a country with federal system. However, is federal system in America, Canada, Australia, UK and other part of the world similar to the original federal view of Johannese? We have heard of different type of federalism but to preserve the integrity of the theory, at the first place before the death of Althusius Johnnese, there was ONLY one type of federalism. It was after his death when scholars from America and other Western countries comes up with critic that sovereignty is for the nation state. By this time a scholar called Hobbes resurrect the idea of “absolute sovereignty” which sees central government or nation state as the only actor in global politic and that powers should only be under central government because that is what matter in geopolitic. No surprises. These two scholars (Hobbes and Johannese) completely have different political ideologies. Hobbes was more of realist and Johanesse was liberal. Because most Western countries claim to be liberals, following Hobbes’ realist view was imminence apparently, it was dictated by their believes in liberalism. Preliminary to the end of WWII, Americans and other Western countries were caught between these two theorists’ views of which they “STYLISHLY” and “INTELLIGENTLY” twisted Johannesse’s original view of federalism to modern federalism. That is how the federal system recognised in American constitutions, Australia and UK came about.
Adoring Western ideas as usual, developing countries are still buying the “unimplemented” Johannese’ idea of federalism without knowing. Just to be aware, the federalism Americans, Australians and other Western countries are using is a naked idea of realists (Hobbes) that focus on nation statecraft which gives central government powers to deal with foreign affairs, national economic and many other powers than local states, however, it is heavily and smartly covered with liberal name of federalism.
Back to South Sudan, Which federal system are rebel’s supporters proposing and which federalism is Kir’s Government’s supporters opposing?
Just Like Kuir E Garang, I completely have no idea why federalism’s opposers, are opposing something they already have in constitutions and why federalism’s proposers are proposing something already in the system. Well, it is not of any surprise to see young “Junubeen” running after their favourite politicians. Sadly running after their poor ideas too. Over the past few days, I witnessed the same trending of “opponents and proponents” of federalism from both rebel and government side without a clear argument of why they are opposing or proposing? but what I came to understand was that, Kir’s supporters are opposing federalism because Kiir and his folks are opposing it and Riek’s supporters are proposing the idea because Riek and his group are proposing it. What these two group fail to understand is that almost everything they are calling and rejecting is in the constitutions ONLY that it lack implementation. For example, the democratic system Riek is campaigning to fight for is already in the constitutions, but because it is being abuse by the corrupt leaders, it sound like it is not written anywhere in the holy book. Cool! ain’t spending time on that, the question is;
Whichever type of federalism, will it work in the fragile State of South Sudan?
Arguably, non of the western propose political ideologies will work with South Sudenese, should it be democracy, liberalism or federalism unless cultural assimilation is done first before all of that. But before I totally dispute that, let me suggest federalism is not a bad idea because it is easy to apply to multiethnic or diverse population and its demands are answerable. However with the original view of federal system brought upon by Johannese, not all states of South Sudan can benefit from federal system. I was amazed seeing Equatorians supporting the idea of federalism because politically, these three states can benefit more from traditional form of federalism then the current modern federal system used by central government for three reasons:
1: Equatorians have share values, language (Juba Arabic), and set of traditional values.
2: Equatorians have the same views when it comes to politics
3: Equatorians have a lot of things in commons, such as food, geographical area and traditional practices
If Rebel were indeed calling for traditional federal system but not the “strict” western modernised federalism, then Equatorians were right to support the idea. Nevertheless, can this be the solution to Equatorians predicaments with Juba? Apparently federalism only gives state powers to forms their government without interruption from higher office like in the case of Taban Deng Gai of Unity state, their states legislations and state laws. However since everything is state this, state that, what about the alliance with international bodies. As I mentioned earlier, ONLY nation state matter and are recognised in international affairs. Though they want to be totally independent or free themselves from Juba political turmoils, Equatorians will still need central government to represent them in international affairs as South Sudanese. And for them to be represented, it need the Americanised modern federalism, that “see federalism as individual base, not social or cultural group”. This still require their political association with central government as the only single entity that will present all individuals regardless of what state they came from in international level.
Well, that is in Equatorians’ three states and maybe Bar-El-Gazaal states, but what about the “Mighty” Jonglei! will federal system serves as solution to their ongoing problems?
Again, just like Kuir said, I have read some comments regarding the introduction of federalism from “Jonglians” or Jonglei residents including Riek himself (wait! is he from Jonglei? I am not sure). Some are madly in support of federal system. I was shock to see how can we, (Jonglei residents) think of federal system when we never try to live in peace since creation. Do we really have the share values? does Nuer and Jieng have one thing in common?. Traditional beliefs: do they even believe in one Ngundeng? Language: do we have one common language in Jonglei. Though government introduce English and Arabic, compare to Equatoria, Jonglei is the only state where majority of illiterate South Sudanese are. And yea, it is also where leaders and wise people are but yet the majority is illiterate. Only few speak these two national language so where are the share values that will constitute federal system in Jonglei state? let me not waste my time on Jonglei because I know the political ideology that will help this state is still under construction, when and from where? I do not know
Do we need Federalism in South Sudan?
The above two mentioned states are example to whether Johannese’s political thoughts of federalism will or will not work in South Sudan. The truth is that local states of South Sudan need each other to survived. There are two ways to look at.
1:Peaceful, stable and economic well off Equatoria can benefit Jonglei IDPs hosted by Equatorian states.
2: Economically, Peaceful and stable Equatororia can improves South Sudan national economy
But the question is, Does the three Equatorians states, have enough resources to accommodate the needs of their citizen? As we are all aware, South Sudan’s economic survival lies in the heart of Unity state. With illiteracy as tradition, introduction of federal system will set this belief in citizens’ mind that since we are sovereign state, our resources are ours, With modern form of federalism, this is somehow true though it might not on other end. What happen with the resources is that central government take charge of the resources but gives higher share to the state holding the resource. For example, when it come to Oil’s budget under federal law, Unity state must always have higher share. Personally I have no stake on the debate of federalism, and therefore my view on federalism is off reach. The overview above was the little I know about federalism but do I want it in South Sudan? my answer remains unknown.
In Summary: Federalism is sweet brother to sovereignty. In Johannese’s political theory of federalism, “Sovereignty belong to the people not the monarch=central government. Johannese argue that “central government’s representatives do not represent people or single common will of individual in state but a plurality of wills of all communities within the one larger community of the nation” rather the focus should be on individuals who have share values and set of similar believes on state level, thus can be represent by their state, which can only be achieves through federal system.
Note: but before buying any theory from western scholars, look at your geographical area, ethnicity, mentality of the people, differences, level of education, social commonality and national economy, for the have greater impact on the implication of the theories. You might wonder why democracy is not working in Africa and Middle East, the truth is, the above mentioned, created rough surface that prevent democracy to take place.
Thanks for reading.
For any inconveniences, you can reach the author through her Facebook page: Amer Mayen Dhieu.
About Post Author
