Extend the life of TGoNU to 5 Years or it will collapse into a political quagmire (part 1)
6 min readBy David Mayen Ayarbior, Juba, South Sudan
May 26, 2016 (SSB) — When a civil conflict (war) ends in a stalemate and is concluded through a power-sharing agreement two scenarios are expected. Either parties to the war agree to usher-in a new political dispensation or to reverse the clock in order to start again but with an objective not to repeat past mistakes. The former is always the best option even though it may come with a new package of pitfalls which the parties might not be accustomed to. But it is the better option nevertheless, because old ways of governancewhich lead to the civil strife might be eliminated altogether. The latter option is what our country has always chosen for resolving conflict. In fact, we have even gone a step further in what has now become a popular phrase in our political vocabulary: “rewarding rebellion,” where village guerrillas could almost automatically rise from dangerous armed civilians to fully-fledged Brig. General or Lt. General, depending on the amount of “headache” they caused the state.
Even though the recently halted civil war is completely different in scale and scope, a fact that warranted an internationally backed peace accord, the formula adopted to bring it to an end was informed by the same principle of rolling back the time so that everybody could breath. It was the negotiators’ (well, mediators’ for political correctness) failure to envision a new viable South Sudan where a President and Prime Minister would work together to create new institutions that might absorb probabilities of conflict recurrence. And now that the country is back to square zero, our mediators and negotiators saw it wise that the two principles (President Salva and Dr. Riek) should battle it out at the ballot box to determine who should rule the country; another myopia as to what the country needs after it has been totally destroyed and brought down to its knees begging for mercy.
Again, for emphasis’ sake, the recent IGAD-brokered truce has not created a path for a safer future for South Sudan, but just reversed the clock to the pre-2013 political setting. In fact, it could even be compared with the pre-2002 time before the forces of Dr. Riek were “fully” integrated into the SPLA. The agreement is satisfactory to all stakeholders (SPLM factions, other parties, and the people) since it has led to a tentative cessation of hostilities which is allowing some refugees and IDPs (outside and in POCs) to sneak back to their homes for a while. But the win-win equation everybody hoped to see is not yet with us just because Dr. Riek is in Juba and is praying with the jieng (which is an encouraged and positive goodwill gesture).
In the greater scheme of things the road to 2018 is a very short distance. And considering what is supposed to be done within the coming two years, it almost looks unrealistic to stick to the ‘IGAD wisdom’ and time frame for a transitional period. The volume of work ahead is simply overwhelming. Mutual trust and confidence building among politicians (and warlords) will require replacing individualism (them) with institutionalism, and that is not a task for two years. And considering that institutionalism is almost nonexistent in the country in the first place even during past peace-times, establishing it in a post-war context of total destruction like ours may even take longer than what was agreed in Addis.
What is the purpose of having elections in 2018 apart from handing the government to one man to be the sole President? There is nothing more than that. There is no bigger political objective than arranging that X or Z should have all powers unto himself which he would probably use to prove a point against whoever stands against his new ‘emphatic’ legitimacy. Why should our country (meaning innocent citizens) be subjected so soon to another risk of carnage that has characterized most Presidential elections in Africa? And considering the extravagant level of armament and awe-inspiring number of trigger-happy tribalist youth in our country, what will become of a bitterly contested Presidential elections in our own case?We all know that what is ahead of us is not good at all, no matter how we would want to believe otherwise.
Having recently stared total state collapse in the facethe country needs more time to heal than merely over two years. All collective energy should instead be directed toward the country’s recovery rather than on who to be the next ruler. After all, when the war broke out in December 2013 and thereafter the suffering inflicted upon the people has been far much greater than that suffered by the leaders who have simply found their paths back to power. And even though each SPLM-faction sees itself popular, it is high time they paid full attention to “the people,” for it is because of the people that the idea of government (social contract) is created.
In conclusion, all members of the three SPLM factions have contributed so much to the liberation struggle and war of independence, with its own ups and downs. No one can deny (or has denied) the two principles and otherstheir role in history.They could all be in a big tent government without “the people” complaining. The alternative might not be viable inthe given context in terms of other briefcase parties, plus the people are simply scared to up rise or structurally incapable of doing so at this regretful juncture of our history.
The current agreement has brought a much needed peace that must be kept for a longer period of time for sustainable national healing and reconciliation to take firm roots. The agreement is something we should use as an opportunity to build a sustainable foundation of a strong country called South Sudan. It does not matter who is in control anymore, it is time for collective leadership. And if the factions failed to collectively rule or extend the interim period, then elections must not be the means of enthroning the new leader of the country. It is simply going to be a complete bloodbath, even greater than the one of 2013-2016. The writing is on the wall.
David Mayen Ayarbior, BA Econ Poli.Science (KIU), MA Int’l Security (JKSIS), LLB (U. London). Author of: House of War (Civil War and State Failure in Africa) 2013. mayen.ayarbior@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 do reserve the right to edit material before publication. Please include your full name, email address and the country you are writing.
About Post Author
