Criticizing President Kiir’s Leadership is not a Blanket Endorsement to Dr. Riek Machar
7 min readBy Philips Al-Ghai
January 11, 2015 (SSB) — When it comes to writing opinions about this unfortunate crises our country has plunged into, my Nuer folks ‘in opposition’ [or at least the ‘anti-Dinka’ diehards] unwittingly misinterpret one thing: that slamming the government’s catalytic role in this sorry state chiefly implies an approval to Dr. Riek’s rebellion. This has long become a routine percept in and out of social media.
Last time, in one of those weary October afternoons, I walked up to some of my Nuer friends over a hot cup of coffee after a long day of lectures and midterms. I would be lying if I say I completely had no hint about everyone’s eagerness to know my thoughts on the S. Sudanese issue. But I have always felt it would only be fair to discuss such stuffs with people with established steadfast objectivity. So the first question was, predictably, whether I buy the ‘it was a coup’ cliché before the hell broke loose in Juba in December 2013, which I answered NO to everyone’s awe. The rest of the conversation quickly spilled into praises of Dr. Riek’s PhD, his ‘successful’ S. Sudan vision, Ngundeng’s prophecies, his democratic ideas et cetera. I had no other chance whatsoever to explain why I hold such opinion, let alone questioning some of the bizarre reasons given to justify Dr. Riek’s supposed ‘messianic’ ideas. Realizing the topic was instantaneously venturing into some of these myopic ideas most S. Sudanese rebels hold, and with remote signs of getting another chance to raise –at least –a query in this ever diverging topic, I hastily gulped down the content of my cup and left politely.
Perhaps it is time we should isolate facts from tribal fantasies. My Nuer folks ‘in opposition’ and their cohorts need to know that Kiir’s Dinka critics do not weigh him against Dr. Riek! Rather, they condemn him on the premise that he has needlessly allowed himself to go down the history books as the first S. Sudanese president with the blood of his voters in his hands. It is a bad precedence for a groomed son of his caliber. For a man who had fought so relentlessly for freedom of his people, it is not only a shame but also a poison to Dinka norms. Growing up as a young Dinka lad in the heart of liberation war, I was often told about how the Arabs enslaved our people. Stories of how our people were persecuted were narrated. I grew up knowing that, like my elder brother (R.I.P) and every able Dinka man, I would be called upon to fight for ‘people’s freedom’ at some point. Fighting for people’s freedom was an internalized ideology; the ideology that became a social responsibility across Dinka cultures. Having fought the war himself, Kiir was expected to champion the rule of law. That was the next level in the quest for achieving people’s freedom. That’s why most of us are enraged when Kiir blatantly try to sit above the constitution. It is deemed a betrayal to this ideology; one of the very reason he and his comrades waged one of the world’s longest wars against Khartoum.
It is no secret most S. Sudanese vilifying the name ‘Dinka’ today either masqueraded as East Africans, or intermittently run to Khartoum when the going gets tough. This does not justify making S. Sudan a Dinka monopoly though. But Kiir was in the heart of resilience to fight on despite series of despicable betrayals from own countrymen. That is why we don’t want him to lose sight of the cause that has wiped his age mates out. We want traitors to watch him seeing this sacred dream through, so they might tell their offspring of their shame. We want him to join his comrades, in the next world, if ancestors beckon, as a smiling man, a decorated executioner of the ideology that cost his tribesmen so dearly.
These expectations might be proving unrealistic for now, but we revoke him to be a great leader. He is expected to be someone who can make selfless decisions in the glaring face of adversity, but not someone who surround himself with unproductive stooges. We want to see him striving to bring the best of developmental services to S. Sudanese, but not disaster. We want to see him working, and taking credit from hardworking citizens, who are giving back to their diverse societies, regardless of their political affiliations, but not someone who rewards sheer propagandists contributing little to national development and co-existence. We want to see him standing tall for socio-politico-economic development of the country, but not social ills. You can’t simply put these expectations on a traitor and political satellites like Dr. Riek.
As things stand, Kiir might no longer fit the bill of a leader most of us envisaged him to be. But that doesn’t make Dr. Riek an alternative. Agreed, the supposed push for the democratic change within the SPLM might not have brought about full-blown democracy, but it would have set the foundation to build on. It was a necessity. However, a closer examination of his subsequent actions suggests it was a fluke. One can assert with certainty that Dr. Riek’s ambition was nothing more than being the next president in 2015. Forget democratic change. This ambition became disguised in the democratic change when he accidentally found himself the highest-ranking SPLM member among those who were rightfully fighting Kiir against power monopoly.
We shouldn’t be oblivious of a huge difference between being a freedom fighter, and being a tribal warlord. The latter fittingly describes Dr. Riek. When the reports of his apology about the 1991 Bor Massacre surfaced in 2011, I was tempted to think that his mistake was forgivable. Most of his then comrades had hurt many S. Sudanese during the war after all, although with varying degrees. Even Dr. Garang had his, and might have been compelled to apologize to the people he hurt if he were alive. I saw such mistakes as consequences of a long costly war, not to mention the pulling force of Sudanese Dinars from Khartoum at the time.
But the current conflict has badly exposed Dr. Riek as a blind opportunist, a poor critical thinker, and a ferocious megalomaniac. I still maintain there was NO COUP in Juba. But rebellion was never the best option for anyone harboring this enormous dream of democratic change. Great changes are not achieved through violence. Even if that was the option, he went ahead and slaughtered the remnants of the same civilians he slaughtered in 1991. He hunted and executed S. Sudanese contributing to the development of Nuerland (teachers, traders, engineers, lawyers…) simply because they hail from Dinka. What has tribal revenge got to do with democratic change? What is democratic about slaughtering the same citizens you purport to bring democracy to? Precisely, Dr. Riek is using the government’s blunder to: 1) avenge his Nuer tribesmen that Kiir slaughtered in Juba 2) get a chance to be at the helm of power, or 3) liberate Nuer nation [I’ve been hearing], of course if his dreams can be that illusive. All these have nothing to do with democracy. Any claim that he is fighting for democratic change is nonsense, and an insult to democracy per se.
So, do not be too presumptuous when encountering a Dinka criticizing Kiir sometimes. Unlike Dr. Riek, the president has a communal ideology he is expected to fulfill. It is the same ideology that brought S. Sudanese this far. It is the same ideology that will take them even further. That is why some of us take off tribal lenses and go hard on him. If he fails, as it seems, a new hero from the Dinka, the Nuer, or other tribes will accomplish the job for the benefit of all. I am optimistic a hero will come. But Dr. Riek is not one, I am afraid. Because he has demonstrated again and again that he has no mental capacity, patience, and resilience required to bring the diverse people of S. Sudan to a common goal. It is the inborn leadership qualities that lead people, not PhDs!
–
Philips Al-Ghai is a proud S. Sudanese and can be reached at alghai211@gmail.com or on Twitter @ Al_Ghai211.
About Post Author
