Dictatorship is the Best Way to Stability in South Sudan (Part One)

By Daniel Machar Dhieu

South Sudan's President Salva Kiir Mayardit (L) with his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao — South Sudan’s President Salva Kiir Mayardit (L) with his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao

–

Dictatorship does not necessarily result in development and stability in the country, defined by human well-being (which incorporates education, health, income, and safety from internal and external threats) and even by personal discipline. Furthermore, there is no conclusive evidence proving that either dictatorship or democracy cause development. Nonetheless, we will prove dictatorships incorporate more control over the variables that define development so in consequence are a better course to get to it.

–

Also, that dictatorship guarantees the Social Order, which is a very necessary prerequisite for any kind of economic accumulation process to be feasible. A form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique, dictatorships are subject to retaliatory actions. I propose this should end.

–

Democratic nations should not take retaliatory actions against dictatorial governments in order to diminish their legitimacy, their power, and to promote their overthrown in exchange for a democratic alternative. This actions account for the diminishing of economic & diplomatic relations with regional and international communities and the cut of economic aid to both national government and opposition wing.

–

We will prove that these sorts of actions can only undermine the possibility of development finally kicking in these countries, since dictatorship is the best way to achieve it.

–

No matter which kind can surely make good or bad decisions. But there are things that can stifle, dilute and postpone any good idea. It will have a tendency to get better in direct relation to the quality and merits of people thinking about it. In some instances the ideas have to be implemented swiftly.

–

Dictatorships fare better when these factors are taken into account. They are superior to democracies in the expediency in which they can arrive to policies and implement laws that could resolve problems. They can easily calibrate the institutional and legal framework, since they don’t need a political coalition for passing or repealing acts. This framework can be efficiently managed, ignoring the special interests that need to be relatively reconciled in democracies, through a time consuming process. So a pro-development government has greater capacity to modernize a society with a dictatorship than under a democracy.

–

During the interim period leadership before 2010 general elections of Republic of Sudan and until 2011 Independence of the Republic of South Sudan from Khartoum. The country confirmed three regional geographical status and ten states for administrations under major ruling party SPLM the most known party in the country and other parties were formed out of more than ten parties including capitalist, socialists, and social democrats in their nature although and leadership participation. Supported by nationalists, and other separatist movements, they seized power. Reaching agreement among them was nearly impossible. Under SPLM leadership, all rightist factions and activists thinkers were denied in the country.

–

Because the can do as they cannot please, dictators can surround themselves and employ technocrats instead of popular personalities, which is helpful in modernizing the nation even when the majority of the population are reluctant to abandon their traditional ways. Dictators do not need to ensure the support of or appeal to a specific constituency by including. In that sense, a dictator’s decisions will have a tendency to represent his own economic interest in development, rather than the popularity or political affiliation of the decision.

–

To do the latter is an inefficiency displayed widely in democracies. Here, the head of government must surround himself with a cabinet composed of fellow party members and allies, regardless of their credentials, in order to secure parliamentary and electoral support, which means he cannot go against the views of the people, who sometimes elect a candidate because they espouse their own views, because they belong to the same clan, or even because they are simply popular and charismatic. The truth of this nature are happening in our country, people never care for local citizen who really gave them right path and recommendations to rule or to lead them and walk on general development, maintaining public funds and improvement on security stability of the country.

–

We want to contrast examples of two people who trusted by citizens to lead them for referendum and into independent. The first is Salva Kiir Mayardit, the president of the republic of South Sudan who took-up the leadership after the death of late Dr. John Garang De Mabior in 2005 until now and Dr. Riek Machar Teny who deputize the leadership since 2005 until when he was removed in 2013 August four months before his defection. The two build their leadership on tribal truck and their tribe loyal a dictatorship where wrangle heart helped by fueling war on both parties.

–

When a Dictatorship makes a decision; be it efficient, effective, straightforward, or divine revelation, it has no mechanism to balance the consequences of the result. What happen is, even if the dictator makes one or two sound decisions, it will leave the possibilities for all the false decisions to come to have no room for accountability.

–

The system relies on the wise choice of a single person or clique to represent the interest of the whole country is wishful thinking. That any development that appears as a result of those choices will have no safety net when the dictators makes a false decision during the early stage of development.

–

The big assumption here is that these Dictators are rational, wise, and not materialistic (given by the proposition’s claims). While power hungry general are able to perform a coup (Which how the dictators from the example stated earned that power) and rule through Dictatorship, the rational, wise, and not materialistic person (read: the perfect ruler) will unlikely be able to take control of power (or even join the military at the very beginning) through those method, making the path of dictatorship lacking any competent candidates.

–

Thus, the expectation that a dictator will consecutively implement bullet proof decision making (without needing a proper check and balance mechanism) is a phenomenon that can only be categorized as a Miracle.

–

FB:Daniel Machar Dhieu
Email: machardanieldhieu@yahoo.com
machardanieldhieu@ayahoo.com
Skype: machar30
wiki space: machardanieldhieu

About Post Author

PaanLuel Wël

administrator

PaanLuel Wël is the founder and editor-in-chief of PaanLuel Wël Media Ltd, a news website that covers news, opinions, analysis, history, culture and literature of South Sudan and the world. Founded in July 2011 by PaanLuel Wël to create a platform for free expression and constructive dialogue, the website features articles from various contributors, including columnists, commentators, poets, authors, activists and academics. PaanLuel Wël believes that media can play a vital role in informing, educating and empowering the people to participate in nation-building and social transformation. He also believes that media can foster a culture of dialogue, tolerance and diversity among different communities and groups, and hopes to inspire and mentor the next generation of South Sudanese writers and journalists.

See author's posts