More States: Federation or Devolution? Kiir’s Decree and the potential Shift in third world politics: Domestic policy as international policy
By Adut Mayor Nyariel Naar, Australia
October 14, 2015 (SSB) — The issue of more states’ creation has caught the South Sudanese people and those concerned with the country’s political stability by surprise. The question that we should be asking is whether or not this would mean: President choosing to work with the south Sudanese people rather than his rebelled colleagues?
This paper scratches the surface of the Sudanese politics as the country relates to other sovereign nation-states including the west. The question now is who should president Kiir be working with or who should he listen to: The people he rules or the “international community”? But suppose Mr. Kiir succumbs to the “international” pressure and recalls or reverses his decree. Would such a reversal amount to peace-making process or accommodation of potentially dangerous and aimless arm rebellion led by Riek Machar and those in his company?
On October the 2th, 2015, the president of the republic of South Sudan, Salva Kiir Mayardit, in a televised address to the nation, decreed the formation of 18 more constituting member states in addition to the already 10 states making up the current political entity of south Sudan; the presidential decree, coded as 36/2015, has been, on the one hand: characterized as “devolution” of the country’s “central powers” and on other hand, it has been characterized as the formation of “28 federal states” leading to full-scale political federation in the near future.
Although the president’s new policy direction has, like any political decisions in the liberal democratic countries of the west, it has generally been well received by the ordinary south Sudanese; however, it has epistemological issues, especially with interpretation. Some interpretations render the policy as “devolution”; while others regard it as the beginning of a process of political federation. In both regards, the new policy directive, is neither Devolution nor Federation.
However, and whatever, the unintended response might be, it could be argued that: on the one hand, majority of the South Sudanese openly welcomed the decision, believing it represents a positive development in the country’s political arena, a promising step towards: “self-governance”. Others on the other hand, have criticized the president’s policy decision, citing lack of “resources” or financial and economic constraints they believe the country would face should the decree be enforced or implemented.
Defending the rationale behind his recent political move, Mr. Kiir explains the purpose of “internal states'” creation as “devolution of powers to the people”, saying: “devolution of powers and participatory democracy” continue to be long-sought political aspirations of the south Sudanese people and it’s time he decides he should let it go as a policy.
Moreover, the new policy directive, according to Kiir and his government officials, is designed, among other things, but for the following two key policy arenas in line with the long-term political power demand alongside ethnic lines : (a) for the country’s long-lasting peace and conflict resolution; (b) returning back people’s power through a decentralized system of governance.
However, the decree has received its hostile rejection and condemnation from those outside South Sudan, especially from Mr. Kiir’s political erstwhile and self-exiled dissidents. So far, it has angered both the rebels fighting Mr. Kiir’s government or the South Sudanese people, as well as those whom South Sudan has already accused of backing up Mr. Riek Machar’s led rebellion–whose key objective is to oust Kiir and his government from power.
Reacting to Kiir’s new policy decision, Mr. Machar slammed the country’s new administrative framework as “unilateral” and a “violation” to the recently signed agreement reached in the Ethiopia capital, Addis Ababa under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD). European Union (EU) follows Machar and his rebel’s line, condemning the South Sudan’s new policy on its internal matters, yet crucial to the country’s stability; EU’s representative to South Sudan and the Troika group of countries, including the US, have both urged Kiir to cancel or reverse his constitutional authority, which goes beyond internal or maximum autonomy supported by the international law.
De Leo, EU’s representative in the south Sudanese capital, Juba: “questions” why the policy decision is timed to the moments it had just be announced; to the extent that the “EU urges S. Sudan’s Kiir to suspend unilateral decree over [the] creation of 28 states”. However, and pending the presidential decree, almost all the 10 states have responded positively to the presidential request; more importantly, the youth population has remained jubilant and is willing to support the new policy directives.
In the formerly Bahr El Ghazal, the lakes youth, whose former state was split into the newly created West and East States, has welcomed new mode of self-governance; in the same vein, formerly Unity State which was part of the Upper Nile region, and now split up into: Ruweng, north and southern Guit states has also welcomed the president’s new policy directive; in line with proposed mechanism, the formation of committees which would serve and resolve all matters pertinent to internal borders, Equatoria has also positively responded to the president’s call.
Furthermore, “The government of South Sudan’s Eastern Equatoria state has issued an executive order for the formation of committees for the registration and distribution of assets, budget and human resources to the newly created states”. If there were any form of peace to be supported by the south Sudanese people what mechanism should it be achieved; or more simply: Why should it be a problem if Kiir decides to sign his own peace with the country’s rightful owners, the people of south Sudan in exclusion of Machar?
Or put this differently: Who asks the Europeans or western nations to do what is good for them, yet whose indigenous populations rarely talk about affairs of state; or have not even learned how to vote for they have not been allowed to.
Given the complexity and political gambling involved in any political decision, including president Kiir’s recent decree, one wonders whether the international community is itself an obstacle to internal peace of nation-states, including south Sudan’s. Machar’s uncritical stance is off limit as ever; in our opinion, all the rebel leader should have said is that the recent directive: Implies that president Kiir has decided to implement the peace deal alone and is not a unilateral move by the president to abrogate the peace accord. This highlights how misguided and uncritical, if not, baseless the criticism labelled at the South Sudanese government might be.
In my opinion, rather than claiming unilaterality and violation: The agreement itself is unnecessary just as the war is. Of course, the south Sudanese chose peace not war by electing Mr. Kiir; Machar and his group chose to shoot them. Moreover, the agreement is signed in foreign lands with foreign government officials.
My question is whether this agreement warrants the power transfer from that of the people to an individual or group chosen by those outside the country. I need not mention these in details. It seems to me, however, that: Machar’s position could in itself be deemed unconstitutional and a felony offense against the south Sudanese people and their rights to govern themselves.
I actually regard the president’s move as legitimate and therefore represents the South Sudan political will to resolve its internal matter solely without foreign intervention. The criticism simply: indicates the “patrimonial” relationship existent between the “third world” nations. Such a relationship is not therefore, “friendship” between two unequal partners. Of course we do not want the current Syrian situation where US fights for their friends and the Russians doing the same on their friends’ behalf.
Although this is left for the Syrian people to decide their own fate, it represents a significant shift in the post-cold war geopolitical theory underpinning the current international theories.
Thus, the claim that the decree implies president Kiir’s unwillingness to implement the peace deal represents official wish or interference by the west in domestic affairs of a sovereign state. On the other hand, it should be seen as a declaration against the south Sudanese people by the west. I argue that Mr. Kiir’s decree demonstrates a potential Shift in the third world politics: in which Domestic policy would double as official international policy.
Following this logic, it would amount to a situation where domestic policy is also an international policy of the state; this presents a problem to the International theories (IR) and to those of state formation. Having stated that, however, it remains unclear as what exactly prompted the recent presidential directive which has led to the formation of new entities designated as “states”; and or acceptance of a federal system of governance, corresponding to Machar’s rebels’ recent proposed peace item.
Mr. Adut Naar is currently a research Student for Master Degree of Diplomacy and Trade, Monash University. Mr. Naar has career interest in a number of fields including but not limited to: International trade, Diplomacy, Economics, International Law and Contemporary International Politics. The views expressed here are not officially endorsed positions by any groups, including the rebels and/or the South Sudanese people or representative of their government; rather, they are views by a concerned individual and expatriate. Mr. Naar can be reached through his e-mail: adutmayor@yahoo.com