The Political Animals in South Sudan: Secret Political Factions, Status Quo, and the Quest for Hegemony
14 min readSouth Sudan’s politicians are their own political existential threat: secret political factions, status quo, and hegemony
By Biar John, Australia
April 8, 2015 (SSB) —- This piece might be offensive to certain people in certain political situations. If you are a strong advocate of political incorrectness or are easily offended, please don’t read it.
It is about south Sudan chaotic political system in which there are a lot of political ambiguities in many political spheres including constituency representation.
The political confusion in South Sudan raises doubts on the motives of politicians in really serving the people. A lot of MPs look less inclined to pursue the people’s interests and more likely to serve their own. Most of these MPs are a group of hand-picked civilians or former army officers and their cohorts, fanned by senior cabalistic bogeymen – the behind the scene men who are the real decision makers.
Most of the MPs were hand-picked when those proposed by their constituencies were deemed to be politically unfit by the bogeymen. There is no voting system in most constituencies across the country; parliamentary representations are rotated between groups of clans under constituencies. Each clan is allowed a turn to nominate someone that represents the political interest of all other members over a certain duration of time.
When its term expires, another clan takes over and nominate its member and it is supposed to go on and on that way. However, the bogeymen have the real jurisdiction; sometimes they jump in and oppose certain nominees and, instead, replace them with their own choices. These hand pick-picked MPs tend to self-represents; not the insecurity prone constituencies across the country.
With these kinds of representations, the country is hostage in the hands of various inner looking cliquish wolves in a self-perpetuating parliament.
In 2010, there was something resembling a political contest in different parts of the country. Two groups of fiercely competitive military men and some handpicked marionettes professed to be political giants and decided to challenge each other over political seats. They decided to organize a political equivalence of wrestling match, known as election, to challenge each other’s strengths and abilities.
The first group was strongly ‘military machismos’: aggressive, ruthless, autocratic, thin skinned, zero civility, zero development strategies, zero staff empowerment, etc. In this piece, this group is referred to as military machismos because they had been some of the famously known military strongmen or musclemen of the guerrilla movement – the SPLA/M during war times with Sudan.
Without whom, south Sudan independence might have not been attained. These men were/are held in the highest esteem for military wisdom as attested by the military/political positions they held in the past and still hold today.
The second group was mainly of ‘political punks or killer demagogues’: tend to cajole citizens into believing them by selling exciting political views such as devolving responsibility and decision-making, and promising development projects that can’t even be sustained by available resources. They seek support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument. But they threaten and issue ultimatums when no one buys their craps.
This piece refers to them as ‘political punks’ for they lack the ability to make good judgements and take quick clever decisions or ‘killer demagogues’ for they take wrath of own political failures on the very people they want to lead or represent. This group was made up of SPLA men who were important but of low rank, which had/has always languished unpleasantly with orders from the higher ranking machismos, plus their friends, the Riek’s affiliates in the SPLA/M disguised as genuine members. And alongside them were National Congress Party stooges whose hands were filled with cash from Khartoum.
Competition day arrived. “Not surprisingly the killer demagogues had an easy victory”, claim the supporters. It seemed their sophistry was music to desperate masses’ hears. It is said the machismos had no any chance against them; it must have been really sad. But the Machismos didn’t accept defeat and continued to stay in power. This angered some of the punks.
Those (punks) who saw the writing on the wall shut up and gave up. However, some decided to protest the machismos’ actions by choosing to be combative. And a tumultuous rebellion broke out thereafter.
But having all the military power in their hands, the machismos couldn’t be bothered in the slightest. Having chosen war instead of a peaceful resolution, the killer demagogues had just got to the nerves of the machismos. According to this quote from unknown source, “macho men of all kinds have the emotional range of a teaspoon and have enough empathy to fill the ink tube in a pen”.
The above paragraphs are reminiscent of political chaos of 2010 when some of the candidates that lost the election decided to rebel, while others waited silently until they saw an opportunity recently in a pugnacious political wankster known as Riek Machar. Their names are George Athor and Dau Aturjong, plus many more not known by the author.
On seeing the aforementioned names, it is possible to recollect who their 2010 election’s opponents were.
The political system in south Sudan is comprised of secret political factions that always stay busy conspiring against broken-hearted masses across the country.
The country has a weird system, i.e., a type where decisions starts from top of ladder and trickle down to narrowing bases of subordinate levels within the factional systems and back up to the top. It is in such a way that political authority is exercised through mechanisms that ensure the entity’s power remains only in the hands of cabals. It looks like it is one other reason among those that plunged the country into the abyss of obscurantism and senseless wanton upheaval it is now in.
Decisions are taken shrewdly and with absolute care lest they reach a common man, who might question them together with the morale of those involved. The public is like a subordinate employee in a rogue company.
As a subordinate rogue company employee, your feelings and concerns are not of any importance, given that you get paid to do the job. However, the company employee gets paid while south Sudanese receives nothing from unscrupulous officials, who use them for financial salvation and political expediency. This is a harsh reality being lived with.
But the messy system didn’t start overnight. It goes all the way back to the time when the whole liberation movement began.
How the liberation movement began was socially destructive, so to speak. Having been founded on Carl Marxist’s (German philosopher’s) doctrines in which the state plans and controls the economy, with a single authoritarian party often holding power, the country was up for an unforeseen devastation.
Claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by all people as per Movement’s borrowed Carl Marxist’s dogma, the guerrilla fighters, with this misconceived ideology thought it meant overall scrapping of the existing social order.
According to anecdotes from myriad individual eyewitness, any SPLA trainees released from training camps would always begin by (striking fear into civilians), abusing them and rampaging on their properties before heading to intended destinations – the military barracks of Sudan government forces where they would stage attacks. This was a terrific beginning militarily but a terrible one socially.
While not neglecting the SPLA both in terms of operations and capability against the Sudan’s arm forces during the independence wars, it worth noting that it, somehow, contributed in bringing into existence the chaotic south Sudan we now see.
The SPLA is an army and in being that it only knows/knew best how to deal with military issues though this can be disputed. As a military organization like many others, it is not a democratic entity. It is run according to a rank system. Civil populations don’t fit in such a system.
In military system, no one else is to be regarded except the fellow army men. Practically, the system requires lower ranking military members to give or receive whatever respect the higher ranking members feel is appropriate and high ranking members are expected to reciprocate on that. A well trained superior officer usually bestows a certain amount of respect for the people working for him/her in order to get better results, and his guys reciprocate the same.
But when it comes down to a situation where the officers have some serious disagreements between themselves, the one wearing the most rank wins at the end. Call it a pecking order if you like. With nowhere to go, the lowest ranking soldiers turn against each other or take the wrath out of civilians, whatever way possible and nobody cares.
During the time of war with Sudan, a lot of decisions were taken for the short term benefits of few. For example, a high ranking officer ate better, better hydrated, slept better, and better groomed. Even at times of military assaults, any martial booties would first be collected and handed over to a superior so he chose the best, first. The situation was the same whether at time of plenty or scarcity. This was understandable considering it was a guerrilla force with no concrete rule based system and nothing to survive on.
But even today in modern south Sudan not much has changed. In many (modern) armies of the world (British army, for example), it is high ranking officers’ duty to ensure that his men are well looked after in order to deal with difficult military tasks. In the south Sudan army of today, it is still soldiers’ responsibility to make sure that in addition to their weighty combat roles, the officers’ needs are met, i.e., before theirs.
The British army might be far too advanced to model, but at least, armies like Uganda’s whose soldiers appear well looked after and properly armed could have been emulated long time ago. However, there is a mantra “we are a young nation” as a pretext for mediocrity. How old does a country have to be to stop stealing from itself, stop tribal wars, and start building schools, hospitals, roads, build up its military et cetera?
Soldiers are nothing more than political fire woods which can be used to fuel up the atmosphere when elites have political chill. Currently, there are a lot being burned between government and Riek Machar for political self-warming; this season is a political winter.
Soldiers can also be a way to apply for a job. If you have men, then start a war for your application submission, you will get negotiations for your interview, and amnesty is your passing the interview. Once you have got your amnesty, you come back to juba and you get your job, doesn’t matter the thousands that you killed. David Yayau is one of such examples.
During the times of independence wars, when there was no enough of anything to go round, ordinary soldiers would often go without. This situation fully developed into a negative culture seen today. The series of practices from past have now become the standards for (SPLM) government practices today.
It is an open secret according to Juba residents that minsters are given houses to live in while at the same time having luxuriating rooms in hotels at a government’s cost, plus another helping hand lent for bills of houses owned or rented in foreign countries.
But the hotel room is the real luxury. This is because sleeping at home would make one looks so small. Since everyone, including low class public members sleeps at home, why wouldn’t one look for something to set them apart, a bid?
The practices have been generally frowned upon by the public, and bureaucrats have tried doing something about it. But all attempts to stop it have only been bogus in nature since the whole situation favours the ones trying to stop it and the same situation goes on. Now, the practices have only slipped into something normally accepted in all facets of the system, and it is referred to as corruption by those who are not participating in it.
Since it is all normal with the majority of officials, jumping out with an opposing perspective can portray you as a smart-arse trying to sow seeds of discords; you are entitled to some sort of punishments, including losing your job.
Everything everywhere is not well and it is widely known. The populous knows and would have a say if allowed. However, the bosses are so determined that not anyone is allowed to speak up. For example, recently in Bor, a group of women that decided to have a say against what they thought was unjust of the local government were arrested and thrown jail.
Sometimes, it is even worse; people were shot to death many months ago in Wau, Westeren Bar el gazal, when they tried to exercise their freedom of expression. The public is stuck in the fear and believe that by expressing feelings openly, it risks entering into a situation that might cause personal suffering.
Fear has always been used to motivate populations to stay away from expressing their opinions and feelings. But this did not just start recently, too. The use of fear as a method of control goes all the way to when the guerrilla war was ongoing. During those times, toughness was key to gaining recognition as a general or (high commander as it used to called those days). Generals who showed no regards to its application did not have any ground to be respected for.
In those days, a lot of leading military figures were best known for its best use of it on local subjects. Many of these guys had the population and situation at their fingertips and could do anything with it whenever they felt like. A large number of lives were lost in those days. Many of those that fell in disagreement with superiors were sometimes ‘fired squad’ on conjectural evidence of crimes. This was probably understandable, too, considering that many did not want to join in the fight and the only way to get them aboard was to use threats of such kinds.
All these efforts to keep the populous in silence was however counterproductive. The distressful situations to which certain Communities were subjected became deeply ingrained and those who were self-defensive against their neighbours can’t even return a simple pinch today. Oppositely, some of the communities which were peace-loving became highly aggressive in response to the harsh treatments, and now hundreds are dying daily in tribal and cattle wars.
After independence however, some change was expected in the leadership style. Guerrilla armies are generally believed to not follow law and orders. They are rather known for ruthlessness. All wrongs committed in those days were situational, understandable, and could be forgiven.
The new nation was expected to follow democratic principles. Democracy looks pretty much like it was one of the reasons behind why we went to war. But, instead, it was jumping from frying pan into the fire. Many would argue it has been worse than when there was no so call independence.
The ambivalent bosses and cohorts became even nastier than has ever been recorded of them, trying all means available, of course, to continue at the helm and not do anything constructive, societally. None of whom wants anything changed.
Everyone still wants to be in the same way, of high power and status and control over the rest of the society as of now and in the past. What is done and left behind for legacy does not matter. You being there all the time is more important. As good as it is to them, right? But what does this really means to the rest of the society? May be nobody cares what it means. But it looks like the unequal conditions can be only maintained permanently.
The status quo seems to remain forever. And it is pretty much so because of the economic and social benefits these guys derived from this stratification. Not wishing to lose these benefits, it is likely that they always fight to keep them by oppressing anything that threatens a change.
Promise to bring about a change by rebellions such Dr. Riek is not a real change, he is one among many of those doing damage. All his doings are just a pretext to get into power and be able to do exactly a similar job of self-gratification.
It might be true if you are the beneficiary of the status quo that as you ago about reading this piece your reaction by now is, “It is an absurd piece of shit.” But doesn’t that sound like some sort of selfishness? How about looking at the religious or moral principles that you “treat other people in a way you would like to be treated yourself”
Looking at the whole situation from a bystander’s perspective, it is clear that those who are oppressed are giving their permission to continue to be oppressed, to those who are dominating them. It is a delicate and an almost invisible form of control, in which everyone (including the oppressors and the oppressed) always believe those doing the oppression job, are the right guys for it and their way of doing is the right way.
It is an inadequacy that develops when shaming authority figures subject the public to mortifying conditions, forcing people to feel subdued psychologically and start viewing themselves negatively in a number ways including seeing themselves being nothing compared to those in power according to (Goodtherapy.org).
South Sudan is a system of hegemony, a style of leadership where one can pull off some sort of control and power of over a group that is addicted to having him in leadership. And so long as MPs are hand-picked or rotated in turns between clans, there will never be real representation. And as long as there is money and somewhere to luxuriate, self-gratification is a sure thing to which the public funds will keep going.
In another word, war over power is unlikely to stop for those who are having it as well as those wanting it won’t even allow a third party from outside, who might be a messiah. And whether one takes a ride on a van wagon on any of the parties’ it is unlikely to give them any space as they are already too full. And whether one leaves the government and run to rebels or leaves the rebels and run to the government, it just doesn’t help.
The whole thing just looks damn hopeless. But if, in any way, one sees it positive and hope that things will change, that war stops and democracy becomes real, then the current politicians will face some sort of punishments from their constituencies as they have done enough of bad to their constituents in term of representation. They are their own existential threat to their political careers.
About Post Author
