Gentle Leadership and the Question of Rebellion in South Sudan
By Nathaniel Athian Deng Mayen, Canada
June 10, 2015 (SSB) — Rebellion is a result of both cultural conditioning and poor leadership. The leaders should pay particular attention to these challenges in South Sudan. When I woke up this morning, I found an interesting Facebook post where Peter Kuol Lual had tagged me overnight. Kuol, in parts, wrote:
“I’m not entirely and totally convinced by this assumption that, if Dr. John Garang were still a head of leadership in South Sudan, there would have been no any rebellion…there were numerous rebels when Dr. John Garang was a leader of a mere movement but not government. Some rebels drifted away from the leadership of Dr. John Garang and formed their movements…I have no any guarantee that could make me to prove the reliability and appropriation of the assumption at all!”
I thank Kuol for initiating a great discussion that warrants inquisition. At the superficial glance, some readers may contend that Kuol has intentionally distorted the topic, first, by using absolutist thinking and exaggeration, such as “there would have been no any rebellion…there were numerous rebels…,”and, second, by giving politically motivated incomprehensive list of former SPLM/A rebels, for example, leaving out Majier Gai Ayuel among his peers: Karbino Kuanyin Bol, Lam Akol, Arok Thon Arok, Riek Machar, and William Nyuon Bany. These limitations—the absolutist thinking and exaggeration, and the politically-motivated selection of the rebels who once turned against Garang—have diverted the discussion to political and tribal extremism, forcing the supporters to resort to defensiveness and misguided comparison on the personalities of Dr. John Garang de Mabior and President Salva Kiir Mayardit. Kuol’s standpoint would benefit from objective analysis which considers the need for discussion beyond the confines of groupthink and social proof, two of the main fallacies on which he has leaned.
Rebellion is a result of both cultural conditioning and poor leadership in South Sudan, in particular, and Africa, in general. The democratic leadership poses some challenges to African and South Sudanese governments (of various levels) because of different cultural and social factors. First, there is lack of understanding about democratic values and principles because leadership in the South Sudanese and African context has been based on territorial conquest during wars or competition, among other instances where leaders from stronger communities and charismatic leaders who show charismatic qualities become kings and chiefs and pass the same leadership system to their sons. This hereditary leadership reveals a tendency where more violent and stronger rulers and communities exploit resources, while the majority of the vulnerable groups submissively live at the mercy of these strong individuals and communities.
Furthermore, most South Sudanese and African communities have collectivist intracultures, subcultures and tribal loyalties and affiliations. The leaders instigate conflicts among the citizens and project tribal identities to further their personal interests. Besides, the tribal leaders impose false identities on tribes and communities to unite against some perceived external enemies, but the leaders later use similar tribal loyalties to divide the citizens along the community lines, especially when the leaders realize there is likelihood of their defeat from the opponent groups. Moreover, the prevalence of poverty and the capitalist quest to get rich quickly create a situation where the emerging subordinate poor become submissively reliant on the emerging rich (political elites). Additionally, the projection of challenges and problems to external influence and the fear of political and economic marginalization hinder the leaders from coming together in dialogue and seeking alternative means to address the challenges.
These, among other factors, lead to rampant defection and disunity, lack of cooperation among the leaders, and conflict, suspicion and inefficient delivery of services to the citizens. The leaders focus on what the followers would do to them and ignore their duties towards the followers. This lack of relationships and trust not only causes conflict and anger, violence and rebellion among the citizens and leaders, but also become an alternative means for individuals to get what they want. This has become the fate of contemporary African and South Sudanese leadership: corruption, tribal loyalty and conflicts, poverty and marginalization, dependence on the few literate individuals, misappropriation of resources, and civil wars, among other challenges for which the African leaders are solely responsible.
The resultant impact of all this mess is rebellion because leaders resort to triggering factors, for example, rigging of elections, as was the case in Kenya in December 2007, or intimidation of political opponents, as was the case in South Sudan in December 2013. Another example on why it is better to understand cultural setting is the case of the Ugandan Opposition leader Kizza Besigye who, once elections are near in Uganda, is accused of rape, arrested, tortured, teargased and dragged on streets. Such humiliation could not succeed among the Nilotic communities, such as Nuer, Dinka, Kalenjin and Luos. Well, President Kiir tried this political strategy in South Sudan, but it backfired and we are still on the run since December 2013.
Part of the proof that Kuol needs to assess the reliability and appropriation of the assumption calls for gentle leadership where the leaders understand the cultural setting of the citizens, particularly Nilotic majority in South Sudan. Devised by Christian leaders like Henri Nouwen and Dan Cheatham, gentle leadership constitutes a growing conviction that a clearer understanding and practice of leadership is informed and fueled by the observation of lives of the subjects one leads. A gentle leader knows when the subjects or followers have enough of the pain, or when they would say enough is enough. Garang was keener than Kiir in this attempt. Gentle leaders are known by how they mitigate known risk and handle other leadership and political challenges. For example, if we listen or read about the behaviours of our leaders, Garang and Salva Kiir, respectively, during the Rumbek Convention of 2004 and the National Liberation Council Meeting of December 14, 2015, we would understand how they have handled these dissenting voices. This brings us back to the main argument: Rebellion is a result of both cultural conditioning and poor leadership in tribal nations like South Sudan, and the best way to alleviate this social and cultural vice is to understand the culture of the majority: Nilotic people.
Through gentle leadership, the leaders know (1) the powers they possess and the effects of the misuse and appropriate use of such internal powers; (2) the powers that the potential opponents possess and the effects of the subsequent use and misuse of such external powers; (3) the experiences of the followers and the manner in which the citizens live by those experiences and the subsequent societal beliefs and values; (4) the responsibilities the leaders undertake and how the actions that result from these responsibilities influence decision making processes and policies; and (5) the motivation and intentions that shape the leaders’ interests to serve (the national interest). These factors enhance peaceful coexistence among the citizens: they are the recipe for gentle leadership because they foster unity and peace and regulate acceptable social relationships and the consequential behaviours and actions.
Gentle leadership encourages leaders to appeal to both the logic and emotion of the audience and take responsibilities for their actions, while respecting others’ opinions (dissenting or conforming). This is another strategy where Kiir’s and Garang’s leadership methodologies differ. For example, despite being a rebel with no government, because Garang rightly put it that the government belonged to Khartoum, Garang squeezed in conventions to get views from leaders and put these views in perspective for strategic planning. Think of Chukudum Convention of 1994 and how it was used to structure the movement, including formation of new districts. Garang also delegated responsibilities and continued to monitor and support the delegates in different ways, as evident in the famous Abuja 1 and Abuja 2 conferences. Garang also went to the chiefs and elders in the villages or invite them to places like New Site for the counsel and advice. On the contrary, chiefs and elders currently go to Kiir to show their loyalty and allegiance. Such change of leadership and citizenry engagement is a breeding ground for rebellion because of the concentration of power in few elitist and corrupt hands.
I should note that South Sudanese opinion writers and critics do injustice to history when they compare Kiir’s with Garang’s personalities. As Kuol has recognized, the two leaders practised leadership in two political distinct jurisdictions: Garang led a rebel movement, while Kiir is leading an established government, at least by international convention on the rules that define nations. Secondly, when some of the Kiir’s critics say that Garang would have led the nation in a different way, Kiir’s loyalists should not hyperbolically equate this suggestion to no rebellion. The critics mean that Garang’s leadership was based on the above strategic planning that would have helped in controlling the rate of rebellion in an established government because these strategies were successful in a rebel movement. For example, despite being a rebel leader with no organized government, Garang squeezed in conventions to get different views from leaders and put these views in perspective in restructuring his movement.
To sum up, we trivialize the rampant intolerance by concentrating on and comparing the leaders. The question of rebellion in South Sudan goes beyond the confines of personalities of leaders because the societal intolerance to dissenting voices is ingrained in the Nilotic and other collectivist culture where the citizens do not differentiate the pride, success and failure of individuals from the success pride, success and failure of their communities. The citizens take such difference personal. We can draw other examples of rebellion from alternative leaderships and associations by South Sudanese in Canada, Australia, United States of America, United Kingdom, and come to similar conclusion: rebellion is a result of both cultural conditioning and a poor leadership in South Sudan. The only successful leaders in this cultural setting are those who understand the culture and practise gentle leadership that consider the experiences of citizens.
–
The opinion expressed here is solely the view of the writer. The veracity of any claim made are the responsibility of the author, not PaanLuel Wël: South Sudanese Bloggers (SSB) website. If you want to submit an opinion article or news analysis, please email it to paanluel2011@gmail.com. SSB does reserve the right to edit the material before publication. Please include your full name, email address and the country you are writing from.
About Post Author
