If the ends justify the means: Is the SPLM vindicated?
By Kachuol Mabil Piok, Juba, South Sudan
August 1, 2015 (SSB) — This famous English phrase has been used umpteen times to gauge the suitability of the methods employed in pursuit of set out objectives (whether in politics, business, etc) vis-a-vis the outcomes. If the end state is in a stark contrast to the desired objectives, it invariably warrant critics to dismiss the strategy and the ideas that informed it entirely as a bluff .
Thus, since the Grand Sudanese revolutionary movement-the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A), took up arms against the most oppressive regime in Khartoum, its ideals animated massive supports from diverse sections of marginalized Sudanese society. SPLM/A, albeit established by the majority of the South Sudanese leaders as a continuation to unaccomplished business of struggle after the abrogation of the Addis Ababa Accord, her ideals or principles resonated with the views of the majority of the marginalized communities of the Sudan.
The cardinal objective of the revolutionary party, under the iconic leadership of Dr John Garang, was to dismantle the exclusive and extractive nature of the Sudanese state, and replace it with an inclusive and empowering state that accommodates the views and embody aspirations of all Sudanese citizens in governance. The SPLM attempts to reform the predatory Sudanese stae was thwarted by the agents of racial and religious sectarianism, which made the choice for unity unattractive option to South Sudanese, who eventually unanimously voted for independence in the most transparent plebiscite ever conducted.
Is the current South Sudan what was envisaged by the SPLM ?
The current South Sudanese state has been characterized by unceasing blood letting before and after its inception. This begs the questions: why more wars? Is the current state not the state the majority of the South Sudanese envisaged to live in? If not what policies have been employed to mitigate against or address these and future wars? Are the current civil wars not undoing the gains of the over two decades struggle?
With critical analysis of all verbal utterances and if opinions posted in the newspapers and online social media outlets by South Sudanese are something to go by, then they largely opine that majority aren’t contented with the established state. Ted Gurr, in his theory of Relative Deprivation, attributes most intra state wars to the differences between the expected benefits and derived ones, if the derived benefits are below par the expected, the majority of the stakeholders will feel short changed. And to address these levels of deprivations, the excluded resort to violence as a means of redress against their marginalization.
Secondly, this level of discontentment is a function of absence of basic services: poor road networks, health and educational facilities, security and termite-like behavior of the selfish elites among other things. while these are the core mandates of any state the world over, the inability to provide them is a recipe for opposition. The inability of the South Sudanese state to provide basic services has been compounded by mega corruptions that have cost the country billions of dollars.
however, this author does not necessarily believe that the current waves of wars which have plagued the country, immediately after attaining her independence are truly a quest for better state, but largely expressions of accumulated frustrations. They have all fallen short of one thing-the objects of protection or liberation-if the insurgents kill, maim, rape, and pillage the citizenry, then whose freedoms are they fighting for? what is the desired end state-a state without people? infrastructure?
These indiscriminate killings put most insurgent groups in the same league with murderous terrorist organizations like Islamic State in Levant (ISIL), whose brutalities have frenzied civilians in the Middle East, just to coerce states to submit to their demands. All the proponents of insurgencies should absorb Mao’s philosophies of waging revolutionary wars, if at all they want to succeed.
Furthermore, this messy state of affairs in the country has been exacerbated by ethnic political entrepreneurs who have capitalized on the frustrations that have pervaded the periphery to incite one ethnic group against another to advance their interests. unfortunately, it has not yet dawned upon them that their thirst for power is bringing down the roofs on them.
Who is a martyr? And a martyr for whom?
If a martyr is that person who has sacrificed his dear life for collective good/cause, then South Sudan, by virtue of having waged several wars against successive oppressive regimes in Khartoum, has huge number of martyrs. Thus designating July 30, as a day to commemorate the fallen heroes is a gracious honour to humanity. Consequently, there are reasons to hold commemorations ceremonies across the country as a honour for the victims of the over two decades wars.
Even those who passively died because of their perceived associations with the insurgent groups (Anya Nya and the SPLA) and become soft targets for the Khartoum regime because of their identities, such as the victims of Wau, Juba, Malakal, Bor, and Nasir massacres among others, deserved to be honoured.
However, puzzling enough, the manner and the styles South Sudan commemorates her fallen heroes warrant some questions; whose pictures should bill-boarded along the streets? During the commemoration, billboards have been crowded with so many unfamiliar names, including junior officers, presenters on TVs also have been eulogizing some unfamiliar, even villain, and prominent names alike. While some famous veterans from the Anya Nya 1 and the SPLA wars of liberation have not even been scantly mentioned or honored. This begs the question, who is a martyr?
If a martyr is that person who sacrificed his live for the greatest cause of the greatest number, how then does a person who sabotaged the same cause become martyrs? This author believes that all those who were killed in the line of duty defending or agitating for the cause of South Sudanese, or killed because his/her southern or christian identity, or even died of hunger because of the protracted wars are undoubtedly martyrs.
Even the victims of our stupid wars are also worthy of recognition. For we have done injustice unto ourselves by denying ourselves basic services, alienating parts of us from the tangible peace dividends, and siphoning off oil rents. All the evil practices we have meted out against each other are haunting us heftily, they have destroyed the socio-cultural, political and economic yokes that have held us together for decades.
Commemorating their demise amidst the current spree of killings in our country is indeed tears evoking, not because we’re paying them tributes, but we’re bidding a pejorative farewell to their legacies and that of the grand revolutionary movement. There’s nothing revolutionary about the SPLM anymore since it has not established what it set out to do. To majority of South Sudanese, a mention of SPLM invokes feelings of killings, chaos, dysfunctionalism, and all sorts of unaccomplished shattered dreams.
I know, most of the speakers who had addressed South Sudanese citizens during the just concluded occasion of commemorating our fallen heroes, have had difficult times crafting and rehearsing their speeches the night before the occasion, sending clear messages to war wrenched population against the backdrop of this pervading frustrations, is a complete nightmare. Crafting a good speech is difficult because of dismal or dearth of achievements despite attaining self-autonomy ten years ago, currently compounded by the human induced economic crunch.
Redeeming the image?
To redeem its image before South Sudanese, the leaders of the SPLM, both in opposition, in government, and the former political detainees, should make face-saving compromises sooner than later, for the country and for their reputations, by bringing the killing spree to a complete halt. The more this war drags on unabated, the more South Sudan teeter on the brink of collapse and resurrecting it later will be such a demanding an exercise.
It is evidenced by its dismal performance that the SPLM wasn’t prepared beyond liberation. The SPLM only had massive knowledge in waging war but scanty knowledge in operationalizing its ideals in to concrete policies which could build a viable state. Thus, this stage of liberation requires new blood, new thinking, and above all respect for the rules of law.
Resuscitation of the citizens’ support and confidence, will require tangible dividends at the grass roots. While regaining the support of the international community will require South Sudan to embrace the international regimes such as respect for human rights, democracy, and the rules of law.
All the above conditions ought to appear in the country’s foreign policy in document and practice in order to avoid subjective individual opinions littering the international diplomatic relations. Subjective individual opinions don’t help South Sudan in anyway but isolating as a pariah from the world of the civilized nations.
Kachuol Mabil is a political commentator on South Sudan. He can be reached via this email:kasiimab@gmail.com, twitter handle:kachuol1.
–
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 do reserve the right to edit material before publication. Please include your full name, email address and the country you are writing from.
About Post Author
