There is no need for Federalism in South Sudan
6 min readBy Hon. Taban Abel Aguek, Rumbek, Lakes State
About two weeks ago, the Vice President of South Sudan, James Wani Igga, gave a well-informed presentation on federalism to the National Assembly. His lecture was well researched; and to some extent, it truly met the standards of other well established researches on federations across the globe.
According to Igga’s presentation, only about 28 of the world’s 193 countries are federalists. That is about 15% of the current governance systems in the entire world. It is practiced most in the elite world of nations that have existed for centuries.
It began to be applied in the US as early as 1787, Canada in 1867 and Germany in 1871. This means that it took years of negotiation and establishment for federalism to be adopted after issues that were deemed as ‘firsts’ were accomplished by the nations that are federal today.
South Sudan became a country in 2011 and would want to become a federal state in 2014. To me it is comical.
From the federalism debate, including the research paper by Igga, it is quite easy to draw many similarities than differences between federalism and the current decentralized system in South Sudan.
The type of decentralized system of governance applied in South Sudan is very much like federalism. The question now is what do we need federalism for? Is it the name ‘federalism’ or the system of sharing powers between the central government and the states?
Federalism is a political system in which the powers are divided between the central government and numerous regional governments. But that is what South Sudan already is.
We have a decentralized system in which some powers are devolved to states. There are state governments led by Governors. Almost everything a federal state offers has already been issued by the current decentralized system.
States have their own legislatures and some autonomy of their own affairs. What has not been applied in our case is fiscal federation. But all the rest is some sort of devolution that is akin to federalism where states possess their constitutions and structures as enshrined in their laws.
There may be weak spots with the current system but they can be corrected in the final constitution of south Sudan.
In fact, some of the cracks in the current system may either be technical or political, but it requires no change of a whole system.
We as a nation, have a problem not with constitutions at all but constitutionalism. Whichever system we apply, our problems shall still exist – and at any time we apply complete federalism – things might even change for the worst.
Some people argue that federation holds the answer to domination by big tribes. Others believe it would give complete control of resources to those regions who own them. But that is a big assumption.
If there are those people who think that with federalism they will be allowed to own resources in their regions then that is a misplaced conscience.
What was fought for by all for more than fifty years cannot be allowed to be exploited by any single region or tribe in the country. All resources shall remain national resources and they can still be shared equitably even under the federation.
And the Dinka Oil in Atar and Paloch that have kept the country running since the signing of the CPA shall also remain a national resource just like any other mineral resources in the country.
So, there is no problem of Dinka with federalism. Rather, the main problem with federalism is that there is no need for federalism in South Sudan.
Various Governance researches indicated that federalism can be good in the sense that it enhances Localized Governance, Local Representation and Freedom to Form Policies.
And it still makes just very small difference and changes nothing for the better for the large masses of the South Sudanese public that are in a dire need of peace and basic services as the first things, and not the system of Governance.
South Sudan still has so many hurdles to surmount. That some other people want it to walk so suddenly in the footsteps of the United States is a nightmare.
There are disadvantages of federalism even in the A-List countries. These include conflict of authority, uneven distribution of wealth, promotion of regionalism and framing of incorrect policies. It may as well lead to pitches- State versus State- meanwhile corruption continues to thrive even more.
Moreover, it prevents the creation of a national policy. That is why the United States does not have a single policy on issues; instead, it has fifty-one policies, which often leads to confusion. And the overlap of the boundaries among national and state governments makes it tricky to assign blame for failed policies.
For South Sudan, Federalism is the one last remaining danger it should avoid at all cost. South Sudanese are there to see it happen. Should federalism be the system to govern this country, then we should agree that this was a bomb that we allowed to be planted under our watchful eyes.
First of all, South Sudan is a country so much polarized by tribalism. Federalism itself can become the first victim of the war fought in its name.
The Neimeri’s policy of re-division of South Sudan was seemingly a good one in the eyes of some leaders, but without the knowledge of its architects, ‘kokora’ emerged. There are high chances that federalism may be tribalised and kokora-ized.
The much needed stability and development in South Sudan cannot be attained through federalism. Apart from practical and technical difficulties in applying federalism, care must be taken with regards to maintaining the unity of our people.
With our already divided people, federalism may come to be the last rift that sets them apart completely into mini-states that do not want one another.
With federalism, we may arrive at a stage where our country might badly be Balkanized and disintegrated into small uncooperative states.
There is nothing that would prevent the federal states from being hostile to one another. People will tend to put their states first before the nation and doors might get slammed on vital calls to national issues.
I was privileged to attend the federalism lecture by the Vice president, and I could figure that it holds a proper insinuation.
Federalism was being demanded by South Sudanese as a second alternative after the failure to attain independence under the Anglo–Egyptian and Arab rule in the former united Sudan.
Federalism is also no longer a popular demand. It has not been subjected to a public opinion; and therefore, there is no baseline from which anybody gets substantiation as to why they think federalism is a public demand.
Federalism should not be forced down the throats of the South Sudanese people. It is not the first thing this country needs now. An attempt to force it on south Sudanese will only backfire.
Should federalism get adopted in the Addis Ababa talks as already reported in the media, then its architects must prepare the remedies to any harms it would cost this nation.
Taban Abel Aguek is a Member of Lakes State Legislative Assembly. He can be reached at abelaguek79@gmail.com
About Post Author
