Bor Counties Proposal: Our Counties and Our Problems Beneath The Proposal
10 min readBy Deng Kur Deng, USA
June 14, 2015 (SSB) — It is always such a great occasion when a community accepts change without resistance, simply for the betterment of its people, but it is not often the case. And for those few who do not want to seek change, any shift can be an uncomfortable one. We are all aware that change may comes naturally with time, but those changes that are forced down people’s throats have more serious repercussions.
In terms of the recent proposal for the creation of three new counties, my position is not meant to insult or complicate the process of securing these counties. However, my concerns lead me to question the motives behind the proposal. Let me be clear that I am not strongly against the idea of creating new counties as there are good things about it, but I do oppose the reasons why the counties were proposed in the first place. In this article, I only wish to express my sincere opinions about the proposal of new counties. I do not mean to sound resentful or intractable; rather, I intend to point out complexities that might arise and are even more likely to derail our communities. When evaluating this proposal, there are fewer conceptual problems, but digging deeper, there are clandestine problems that must be revealed and reevaluated.
The creation of new counties sounds like a credible plan, but it lacks the full support and input from average citizens. Those who were not part of the discussions—namely those at a lower socioeconomic status or with little to no education—may be regard the proposal with disinterest or even hostility. Those people are less likely to be given a chance to participate fully in the conceptualization and construction of these counties. Unfortunately, the aforementioned groups also may not know the purpose of the actions taken by their leaders. Now that this change is being initiated, the support of the majority is a serious issue. So far, the leaders have treated the average citizens as if they were passive when it comes to participation in public issues. As such, the system these leaders are striving to create is not being driven by the ideas or the best interest of their constituents.
What our current leaders fail to recognize is that the passive form of engagement exhibited by many of their people is another way of showing disenchantment with the leadership. So far, the system has not reached out and spoken directly to the most vulnerable members of our population, and so they do not feel the urge to voice any confidence in a proposal that might increase differences and rob them of their collective voice even further. This is why facilitating civic involvement and political participation is very important, as it will reduce level of confusion and doubt at the time of critical changes.
Our community must emphasize inclusive participation in our administration and its decisions, so that we still incorporate the needs and opinions of people from the lower levels of our society. We must clearly focus on the involvement of all citizens, because they are always the ones affected by social issues. So far, the majority of ideas suggested to help our community have been predominantly proposed by politicians, a few community leaders, and a small handful of elders. However, the voices of those who are most likely to be manipulated and who might, as a result, ignite violence—namely uneducated people of a lower socioeconomic status—are not well informed.
With this in mind, our leaders must invite these people to join the conversation and stimulate their political participation to encourage a sense of a community and involvement. The absence of these groups from the process is more likely to cast doubt, because without them, there is no uniformity in the decision making process.
Now, my position may look different, and some people may call me a cynic or worse. But in reality, I simply believe that the decisions we make as a collective people should be the outcomes of research and thorough discussion. I strongly support research, which could provide evidence, for example, of why changes are urgently needed in our community. We need to be concerned with the big picture and the role that each individual plays in our society. Rather than fault-finding about the rooms that many counties need, we should turn our attention towards real concerns, like a lack of formal policies, poor performance, lack of execution, and failure to follow procedures meant to help the system work. All of these shortcomings have affected the revitalization of the present county.
Unfortunately, regardless of whether or not our leaders choose another approach, these bitter realities are inevitable, because no society accepts changes without hearing from those who do not support those changes. That being said, everything listed under the counties proposal is premature. The proposal does not promote anything substantial, and there are too many ambiguities to be ignored. Therefore, there are bound to be objections to these proposed changes, other than my own. If we do not question the semantics of this proposal, we may not be able to navigate the burdens it might inflict on our community.
On paper, it appears that splitting one county into segments (or multiple counties) can accelerate development and encourage the spread of wealth. Analyzing the proposal more specifically, though, I am certain that these proposed changes do not deal with real, current issues. These changes are not trying to accommodate our people; they were born out of fear that overpopulation and a lack of equal distribution of wealth will jeopardize certain groups of people. And instead of addressing those underlying fears that eat at the heart of our community, this proposal looks at those two issues as if they are two minor concerns, two social problems, when in all honesty they have the power to cripple our community.
The ideas behind the proposal that our leaders agreed on lack substance and discussion. We know that having one county has not weighed down the development of our county. And that is why these presented reasons for change are unacceptable. In fact, there are no clear reasons, other than the two mentioned above—the two spawned by fear, not logic or research. In fact, these two concerns are creating more problems than they cause themselves.
If the proposal succeeds, there is a serious possibility that our community will be engulfed by violence over disagreements, particularly on the land issues. It is urgent that we look for effective ways of avoiding conflict among ourselves, especially tendencies that might encourage imminent threats to the welfare of the communities. This whole situation needs time, insight, and a pragmatic conversation before it proceeds forward, and before we all are negatively affected by the consequences. Otherwise, no one will remain unaffected.
If these divisions are imposed on people, the process will not be smooth or dignified. Already, I feel devastated by the news of this proposal, because I can predict the intensity and challenges that this dissection may bring. However, I know this, too—that those who decided on this course of action are the ones who should endure heavy criticism for inciting our differences. Now that they set the wheels in motion, I am certain that delaying the actual division is our only escape from the scope of violence.
On a related note, more people grow concerned with the speculations about joining the Deer and Athooc people. If it is true that Deer is pending to be glued to Athooc in order to even out the population, then there definitely must be something wrong with this proposal. Such a decision would not simply be called careless decision-making; no one is simply curious to see what it would be like for Bor County to be slashed into three pieces and transfer Deer to Athooc. There is nothing pathetic than cutting Deer out from Jurkoc. Jurkoch must stand as a county rather than transferring some of it to Athooc. If this continue, it better be called Deer-Athooc county or leave Deer alone within Jurkoc. I hope you see my point of contention. Our leaders had motives, but those motives do not account for the repercussion of their actions. For now, I must wait to see what the results are going to be.
I honestly feel in my bones that there is more to this idea of the fragmentation of Bor County than meets the eye. People are ignoring the potential outcomes hidden beneath the fancy proposal—violence. Demarcating new counties might very well create uneasiness within ourselves and our new counties, and that unease can easily bring about uncontrolled violence. The notion of dividing one county into three counties in order to address a population’s vague “needs” is in itself not a well justified position. Even if this proposed solution has the intent of eventually helping to address the equal distribution of wealth, unfortunately, there are a number of circumstances beyond our leaders’ control that could still prevent that goal.
This proposal may prompt us to consider solutions to the above problems, but we shouldn’t be shortsighted by the first ideas presented, as the consequences of which would be overwhelming. The proposed ideas are not well formulated, and they ignore the subsequent problems that the proposal itself may bring about. For example, let’s say in 35 years, Atet may quadruples. Therefore, if we were to reassess or create more and more counties at every chance, or with every new line of population growth, then we will never stop dividing little counties into even tinnier counties for the sake of population growth and equal distribution of wealth—which are very illegitimate reasons for us to continue to use those as evidence why dividing our one county into counties is necessary.
Again, the leaders have reached a very problematic consensus, but they must be prepared to deal with the broader, unrestricted issues of land, which are time bombs. Any approaches used to tackle land problems between various sections will not fully address the overarching problems, and as those divisions materialize, communities are more likely to employ violence to clearly mark their territory. This threat should not simply be ignored; rather, it must be brought back to surface and reevaluated carefully. We are at a very sensitive time as far as land is concerned. Population growth is a long-term issue, which is why truncating land now will most likely bring sudden, formidable chaos to communities. Any violence will then distort the real meaning of the counties, and only further exacerbate divisional problems that are already there. And so, reexamining the subdivision of our one county must be prioritized.
We must consider the possibilities of what might follow if we agree to this proposal, unchecked and unchallenged. Some of us in the community are troubled by the decisions taken by our leaders and elders. We are nervous that these choices are not suitable and might be dangerous, and as members of this community, we must make our voices heard. If we halt this proposal in its early stages, and allows time, we can help communities build their trust and understanding of the laws and help make the changes themselves in the future. We do not want our people to take laws into their own hands and jeopardize our coexistence, so we must encourage all people to help shape those laws now.
Now that I have stated my case, I would like to clarify that I have the highest regard and respect for the following people of Bor and their efforts to improve our society: Dr. Agot Alier, Kuol Manyang, Makuei Lueth, Panchol Jongkuch, Dengtiel Ayuen, Aru Maan, Dr. Mathiang Kuch Arou Maan, Bishop Garang Anyieth, Maker Chol, Dr. Angok Kuol, Maker Thiong, Alier Ayom, Wal Athei, Maker Lual, John Wuoi, Kuol Nyuon, Ayuen Alier, Nyok Kucha, Manyang Agok and everyone who was involved directly or indirectly in the counties proposal. Thank you for your hard work and commitment to our community.
This article was written by Deng Kur Deng A.K.A Raanmangar. You can reached him at pananyangajak@gmail.com
–
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
