Coup against “turn- to -eat philosophy” as Parliament extended its life without consultation from voters
Coup against “turn- to -eat philosophy” as Parliament extended its life without consultation from voters: The case of constituency No 13
By Michael Mading Akueth, Panyangor, South Sudan
March 26, 2015 (SSB) —- In 2010, there were serious debates about who should represent us in Parliament, South Sudan. The communities met and debate about it.
There were many leaders who had shown interest to contest in the election and their manifestos were amazing but because in the past someone from their areas were a member of parliament they were told that the chance does not belong to their payam.
The term which I called “turn- to -eat philosophy” was the set criteria for selection; peoples’ leaders who were very popular and result-oriented were turned away and the person whose his community have the turn -to -eat was chosen to represent us in Parliament.
They could argue that your leaders had represented us in parliament and government during the Khartoum regime and it is now our turn- to- eat.
We want to send our son to parliament so that we could be able to eat enough this time like the way you did. How did this concern me? I was not in the last elections and you are now accounting people who did not affect my life in away.
It was surprising that the spirit of choosing leaders according to their potentials had disappeared and the spirit of our turn to eat had taken over. What a tragedy?
The community that was known for visionary leadership had dropped her standard of leaders’ vetting from charismatic skills and service delivery to simple vetting of our turn- to -eat.
We were listening with surprise because there was no programmes which the leader was showing to voters for them to vote for him but he was simply saying it is our turn- to- eat.
He mentioned leaders in his opponent payam even people who are working in government as servants who were employed because of their skills to disqualify his opponent thirst for the seat.
He won for sure because he could count more people from his opponent side who are working in government and his opponent gave-up and allow him to go to parliament.
Now that you have stayed for 5 years and your term has officially ended according to our community criteria (turn –to- eat), Do you have a moral authority to continue in parliament for the extend period of three years?
You and your community set the precedent in the last election that you are not going to parliament to delivery services but it is your “turn- to- eat” since our communities had their chance in the past.
This was the judgment and other community members accepted the “turn –to- eat philosophy” as the guiding tool to reach consensus in any election.
Therefore, though the parliament has extended its life for three years, we don’t think it is honorable for the area MP for constituency 13 to continue serving in the extended period of Parliament because He is breaking the rules which took him to parliament in 2010.
I’m presenting my opinion here as a voter who had voted for him in the last election and who believes in promises as true covenant of love. He will be robbing our community if he continues serving in the three years extended period of parliament.
Since he is renowned lawyer who had been fighting for people rights and democracies; he will not accept to continue representing us in parliament against our wills. This is will be a clear promotion of impunity.
I want to remind him not to forget our criteria which took him to parliament in 2010 “turn- to- eat philosophy”.
–
About Post Author
you’ve said all that was in my mind big bro Mading Akueth! if a long serving Molana in the calibre of Hon. Dengtiel Ayuen Kur keeps mum in this case, it means there’s a big problems.. our leaders are reduced to self-serving ones who determine their lifespan without due regard to very pple who elected them into that parliament. these pple are clearly serving their little souls..tell them.hammer their heads.