WHY CONFUSE KIIR MAYARDIT LIKE THE PROVERBIAL ELEPHANT?
5 min readBy Kuol K. Alberto, Juba, South Sudan
January 8, 2016 (SSB) — My dear readers, allow me to bring into your attention some of the instances where in my opinion, I feel the president has been confused and thus explains the lack of progress in this country. The proverbial elephant I alluded to above was said to have been chased by villagers. The story had it that, sometimes back in a certain village in this country there was a young boy who happened to witness his father and some men in the village seriously engaged in a fight with a stray elephant. His dad and the rest would run after the elephant seeking to kill the elephant and once the elephant turned to fight them, they would back off and instead ran for their dear lives. This went on for quite a moment until the young boy wondered why his dad and the rest were confusing the elephant in that when the elephant does not engage them in a fight, the villagers struggle to fight it, and when the elephant turns to fight them, they run away.
How are people confusing Mayardit like the proverbial elephant? In the first place, intellectuals through their various articles and talk shows have been writing on a number of issues beginning from challenging the leadership on poor governance, criticizing the leaders on corruption, nepotism and lack of patriotism. Furthermore, they have written beautiful articles on what is the best way of correcting the mistakes that are plaguing the country. All these have not all been brushed aside. Some have surely been taken and absorbed.
Again, some few privileged individuals who meet the president almost every time they need to have advised him either positively or negatively. I say so, because some of the suggestions they have given him since he took over after the death of the Late SPLM chairman have varying implications with some taken well and there we see some progress but a lot more never worked.
Finally, the political parties in every country work to bring about checks and balances. As they are onlookers, they see better than the players in the field and would suggest the best course of action that could alleviate the suffering and bring about the solution. However, in my opinion, this has not worked out well as expected. Some of their ideas are very good while a lot more dwells on what is wrong and not the solution to the problem they are seeing. Whatever they suggest once taken up by the ruling party, they begin to criticize it.
And this is the essence of this article. And now, let me bring to your attention few major instances that either a certain group behind the scene brought on board or raised by a concerned person/group through media or an article. The author of this article is not in a position to name with certainty who might have suggested what that led to which change. This is partly because the author does not know these players since majority are anonymous. Allow me as well to inform you that the order may not be in sequence as I may jump from one particular case this year and that of the beginning of CPA.
First, the big reshuffle (July 2013) as it had been termed by many. This was a shock to many South Sudanese. It was taken with mixed reactions as others saw an imminence danger coming ahead and indeed their fears were justified. However, another group among the South Sudanese saw this as an opportunity to usher in new faces, fresh blood who may change the course of leadership and hopes were high for a better, secured South Sudan. How the president came to this decision was either through the various articles or through the few influential members of his circle. Now, in this particular incident, it is obvious that, the many reactions the president came across confused him of what truly do our people want. It led in my opinion to the just ended war that we are experiencing the brands of it.
The oil shutdown (Jan 2012) as a result of our dissatisfaction with the way Khartoum was handling the process of the delivery of crude oil and the charges were extremely high. Again, this was received with mixed reactions, with some opposed to it as it led to inflation and economic crisis, while others felt relieved that at least we have a country with rules and can decide what to do with its resources. After the negotiations, the oil was finally allowed to flow again through Khartoum. Some never liked the decision anyway.
The dissolution of the SPLM structures following disagreements within the top leadership of the party was never taken as well, positively. Among these few cases, I would like to point out that, the president never received in any meaningful way, the appreciation we expected.
The signing of the compromised peace agreement in August last year with the rebels of Riek Machar was seen by critics and Kiir’s staunch supporters as giving in to the demands of the rebels and the west yet it is one way to bring an end to this madness and senseless suffering of innocent people.
My dear readers, you may name the rest of instances where the president did one thing and the next day, one gets mixed reactions. By citing all these does not mean I am in agreement with all that the president does but that I agree with him sometimes when he is correct.
And so, my biggest question is, why do we confuse the president?
Kuol K. Alberto <kuolkuol2001@yahoo.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 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
