Advocating Federalism: A Case of Building a Burning Cattle Byre.
4 min readBy Joseph de Tuombuk
A wise man once said that “you should not discuss what type of wood to use for a supporting beam for the new cattle byre while it just started burning; try putting out the fire first.” The debate surrounding what system of governance would be ideal for South Sudan is a good debate, but it is one happening at a really bad time in our country.
It is not by accident that the debate over federalism is suddenly a salient topic in South Sudan. After all, the proponents of federalism have become convinced that had federal system of governance been implemented in South Sudan, the current strive would have averted. Conversely, the opponents of federalism believe that if implemented, the problems in the country would multiply and, among others, a singular national identify would be weakened. Both sides have some points.
However, South Sudanese should collectively put down the armed insurrection against an elected government first, before revisiting the issue of the type of republic we should have. In other words, let’s save the country before deciding how to make it stronger, better.
The fact that leader of the armed insurrection, Riek Machar, has suddenly ‘rediscovered’ federalism as the solution to our woes should be enough to cause us to reconsider our support for federalism. As I stated in my previous article, federalism is being championed by a wrong messenger. Having chosen to turn gun against his people, Riek has lost all legitimacy to advocate what kind of government should be implemented in the South Sudan.
Had Riek formed a political party and peacefully preach his alternative policies, many would have breathed a sigh of relief. In fact, it would have helped the country move forward because those who felt that the Kiir’s administration was not fulfilling their wishes, would have welcomed an alternative party that would do things differently. It is fair to theorize that Riek was never interested in providing alternative policies, but was purely interested in seizing power; even if doing so through unconstitutional means.
Riek knows that when he pushes federalism, or chop up South Sudan into 21 states, he is putting Kiir government on the defensive. Not only would that, being able to raise doubts in the minds of Equatorians who currently support the government be enough to peel away some supporters.
Supporters of federalism should not blindly take Riek’s promises at face value. They should prepare a list of questions starting with: a) Why, Mr. Machar, are you suddenly for federalism? A follow up question to this question is necessary. B) Since you have been in the government in various capacities since 2002, why didn’t you push for federalism in all that time? Proponents of federalism should listen carefully to his answers, and analyze those answers before convincing themselves that Riek is the right person to bring about the right form of government in South Sudan.
Federalism debate should not be a taboo in and of itself. People have an inalienable right to debate freely what they think would benefit them. It is not a crime for our brothers in Equatoria region to push for federalism.
However, they should explain clearly what form of federalism they want to see. If Equatoria wants to manage its own affairs and possibly disenfranchise minority tribes in its region, then this is something that is not going to find support anywhere else in the South. This would not be different from Kokora of 1980s. If they genuinely believe that federalism would lead to efficient governance and foster inclusive representation, then no one would fight this position.
More importantly, Equatorians should push their own position and not allow Riek to hijack it for his own selfish political gains. As VP James Wani advised, Equatoria should not allow people of South Sudan to associate demand for federalism with the on-going insurgency. Supporting Federalisms should not be equated with Riek’s insurgency. Riek is merely an opportunistic user of federalism as a recruiting tool. He has never believed in the damn thing.
This brings me to my final point. Federalism is an issue that ought to be debated by the people of South Sudan and put up to referendum. If the proponents of federalism win, then no one would go against the wishes of the people. President Salva Kiir did not close the door to possibility of federalism, and in fact hinted that this is an issue that the people of South Sudan should decide; not politicians nor should it be negotiated on foreign lands.
More importantly, there is time to debate federalism. South Sudan is not disappearing beneath our feet. We can always return to this issue once we have saved the legitimate process of transferring power in our country. Allowing federalism to weaken our resolve to defeat insurgency would only weaken the country. The winners would be those who have chosen the wrong way to handle political differences.
The author is a South Sudanese living in Minneapolis, MN United States. He can be reached at joe.tuombuk@gmail.com.
About Post Author
