South Sudanese should confront the stark realities of identity politics in the country

Confronting realities of identity politics is the effective means of solving problems in South Sudan

By Daniel Juol Nhomngek, Kampala, Uganda

May 29, 2016 (SSB)  —  Identifying problems and deal with them as they are without pretending that they are not there is the best way of ending unending problems.

In South Sudan, leaders and some of the “educated citizens” are living in self-denial that the country and politics is not defined by tribes, which is not true. In actual sense, all intellectuals and leaders’ actions are defined by tribal influences.

However, there is hypocrisy as these bunches of intellectuals consider nationalists only in speaking.  This is why they condemn leaders speaking their own mother tongues in public or on National TV or when they closely associate with their own tribe-mates.

I came to realize this hypocrisy when President Kiir spoke in Dinka language in Rumbek in 2014 or so. He was telling the truth as to why people continued to kill each other yet there was a war going on.

Kiir told those in Rumbek that it was bad to kill each other yet there was a major problem facing the country and if they wanted to fight then they should pick up their guns and join the army to fight against rebels in Unity.

On hearing this statement from the president, many people who considered themselves nationalists starting condemning him that he spoke in mother tongue on national TV (SSTV) and also that he incited Dinka Population to attack Nuer people.

The interpretation attached to what the president said and the language he spoke was unfortunate. It showed that those who interpreted what the president said were living in self-denial and do not want to confront the realities of South Sudan as they are.

The realities of South Sudan are that: South Sudan is made up of tribes, because of that the identity politics based on tribes will never go away.

In addition, most of South Sudanese at the moment have distinct identities that can make them to be identified whether they have talked or not.

Thus, speaking in mother tongue on national TV cannot make people to conclude that he is discriminating people or he has become tribalistic. Such understanding was a simple way of looking at things.

Moreover, the president was telling the truth. There was rebellion and also people were killing each other on daily basis. Therefore, instead of killing each other why should they not join the army to defeat rebels and that was the reasoning of the president.

However, those individuals who are more nationalists to the extent of not knowing what the nation wants took the comment of the president out of context just to reap their parochial political interests.

What defines their reasoning is the prejudicial way of looking at things. In South Sudan, politics is the part of daily lives and this explains the way people interpret things the way they do.

In fact, the statement of President Bashir of Sudan is also applicable in South Sudan. President Bashir once said, “Sudanese people are highly political”. In the same way, South Sudanese are highly political as they mix tribes with politics and at the same time deny the fact of tribal influence.

Most presumed South Sudanese nationalists do not believe in the existence of tribal identity politics. Yet the tribal influence always makes them look at things as intended against them. This makes it hard for the government to come up with neutral agenda which can be supported by the majority of citizens in the country.

However, government like some of the citizens does not identify the element of identity politics. They are always in self-denial by putting blame on government for having failed in nation building.

Nonetheless, the whole matter goes back to the fact that whether we blame each other or the government, we have failed to realize the role of identity politics in our lives which determines the way we look at things.

The failure to see the reality of tribes makes us fail to deal with realities of South Sudan, and instead, we always apply the policy of ostrich. Ostrich policy is expression used to refer to the tendency of ignoring obvious dangers or problems and pretend that they do not exist.

Ostrich has a habit of putting its head in the sand instead of facing the problems squarely to get a real solution. In the same way, South Sudanese, especially educated ones do not analyze the problems instead they deal with effect of the cause.

The bottom line of our failure to realize the negative impact of tribal influence is the failure in the first place to acknowledge that we distinctively belong to tribes which influence our way of thinking.

Based on the assertion above, it is logical to conclude that the problems facing us today in South Sudan will never go away unless we confront the realities of tribes and their influence on us.

This failure is due to the dangerous disconnect between the ever-more simplistic tone of modern campaigns for national unity and the subtle trade-offs the government officials and other intellectuals have to face when they take over the job of governing the country.

When the leaders take power they find themselves split over desire to maintain power and the desire to work for the unity of South Sudanese people.

The conflict due these desires creates a line of weakness which is easily exploited by tribal influence. Hence, when these leaders are faced with challenges from opposing groups that also need power, they can easily turn to tribe-mates for support that give them automatic blind support because of tribes.

In the same way, intellectuals in the opposition can easily use tribal sentiments to mobilize support for their narrow political gains. This explains why politics of identity is apparent in South Sudan though many educated people and leaders deny its existence.

The explanation for the denial comes from the fact that the politics of identity has never been understood by many as it is blended in national politics.

As some writers on this topic have pointed out, the politics of identity is not well understood yet it is one of the realities the country like South Sudan must tackle for it to achieve national unity.

 Failure to understand the fact of the existence of various tribes in South Sudan and their influence in the governance is the root cause of all the current problems we are facing in South Sudan.

For instance, corruption is at extreme level in South Sudan but if someone from different tribes criticizes the government because of corruption and because the president is from Dinka, most of the Dinka people will not take that criticism in good faith or as a patriotic move, but they will look at it as an attack on Dinka power in South Sudan. This clouds the real issues and keeps problems under the cover of tribal protection where they keep on escalating to dangerous levels.

 In the same way, other tribes can protect the power if they were given opportunity to hold power in South Sudan.

In addition, because of the tribal influence built on self-interest, which is the reality of South Sudan, people from other tribes do not reflect on their own weaknesses but they keep finger-pointing towards the other tribe or tribes they think are the problems of South Sudan.

On the other hand, the other tribe or tribes seen as problems do not also reflect on their own weaknesses instead they are always on defensive position; they go on blindly protecting their legacy whether it is there or not.

When someone sits down as I usually do to objectively analyze the South Sudanese problems and their root causes, one can come to the conclusion that negative tribal influence is a frightening reality in South Sudan.

Instead of sitting down to find appropriate solution to the problems of tribes and their influence in South Sudan, leaders and other intellectuals often dismiss them passively. These passive ways of dismissing things which matters in South Sudan without actively analyzing them and possibly use them for South Sudanese benefits is another exacerbating factor in disunity of the country.

The source of disunity is the influence of negative identity politics that arise from tribal identity from different tribes. Thus, the failure to acknowledge the existence of identity politics and tackle it for but instead allowing citizens to attack each other based on tribes is a threat to unity.

In South Sudan, intellectuals and leaders are all confused. They are living in self-denial as they keep on attacking identity politics. Without in fact understanding that they are also involved in identity politics and by attacking it they are also attacking themselves indirectly.

The “nationalists” of South Sudan look at politics based on tribes as a divisive assault on civilization traditions. Those South Sudanese who look at politics in this way are theoretical in their approach to practical issues involve in nation building.

To show that these politicians and intellectuals are theoretical, the way they react when face with “tribal politics” explains this. When face with the problems of identity politics based on social movements or tribal movements as many politicians call them, they are quick to attack these movements that they are against the national unity. Yet, in the country like South Sudan there had never been any unity in the pure sense in the first place.

Now, with outbreak of civil war in South Sudan and the way the war was fought the politicians and some intellectuals are proved wrong. There is no doubt any longer that South Sudan tribal or identity politics that has been narrowly defined by leaders and other South Sudanese intellectuals and aggressively maintained by the leaders has a very devastating impact on national unity and more inclusive solidarities.

For example, the identity politics that has been developing the ideological works between Nuer and Dinka that clearly defines a sense of community or people-hood of these tribes proved to be a motivating factor in struggle for recognition.

The repercussion of tribal feelings based on desire for recognition resulted into violent that almost erased the history of South Sudan. The course of the history of the country was almost changed by intertribal struggles over desire for dominance and recognition disguised in aspiration for building a nation.

Thus, 2013 tragedy that took place in Juba were thousands of people had been killed as a result, was caused by identity politics. The fact that Riek Machar was from Nuer and Salva Kiir was from Dinka was enough to fit two tribes against each other with devastating force.

Thus, tribes are a reality in our politics and social setting and failure to acknowledge this fact will always act like a blood cancer in our politics and development of South Sudan.

However, it should be clearly pointed out that tribes are not problems of South Sudan per se. What make tribes to appear to be problems is the political and educations systems. The type of education we receive and the type of politics we are exposed to are the one to be blamed.

Education that was received by current South Sudanese in Khartoum and the one that children are receiving today in South Sudan is a major contribution to our failure to tackle the practical problems.

The reality of our education is that it makes receivers to be theoretical individuals who look at themselves as nationalists who cannot offer anything to the country practically.

Instead, education teaches or taught those who received it on how to corrupt the system as government is seen as a source, which one can steal from to enrich him or herself.

 Thus, individuals educated under Khartoum system specialize in the art of corrupting system and mobilizing tribes to defend individual interests blend in national interests. Hence, tribal and national politics become inseparable.

  As stated in the above paragraph, the mixture of tribal politics and national politics makes many intellectuals to see the influence of tribes as a minor issue that can be eliminated with time.

In fact, intellectuals of South Sudan have failed to see the effect of tribal tendency on their lives. As it is visibly clear, these intellectuals who shun tribes are at the same tribal instigators, accomplices and the mobilizers of tribe-mates to fight for their political interests. They are also recipients of the spoils of tribal mischief.

In fact, all of us are tribal corruptors and harlot who act together to demean our country and ourselves. The truth will come one day to realize ourselves that there is a need to mold ourselves into midwives of national building.

In order to do that we must understand what involves in a nation building. Nation building means to acknowledge the realities or problems in the nation and then turn those problems into advantage in building of nation process.

As I have already stated somewhere in this work, the reality of South Sudan which is also its problems are tribes. There are sixty four tribes in South Sudan with conflicting sixty four demands for limited resources. Under these circumstances identity politics is bound to arise.

Dismissing identity politics like that of South Sudan, which is always accompanied by various interests in the pretext of building national unity will not help much but it may always trigger off crises or war every time the tribes demand are not addressed.

Hence, South Sudanese government must therefore acknowledge first that tribes exist in South Sudan, which should have been the first step in drawing national plan for national building. This is important for a simple reason: if we do not realize the fact of the existence of the tribes and their influence in our politics, we will never go anywhere.

The identity politics and its consequences are the realities of South Sudan that define our lives and the question is: how should South Sudan respond to identity politics?

The first thing to do is to identify and acknowledge that tribes exist in South Sudan and they are influencing our national building and sharing of resources. Thus, there is a need for streamlining the imbalances caused by uncontrolled needs of other tribes, which may help to ensure that all members of different tribes are not marginalized.

The above approach has been taken by other countries. Ethiopia is one of those countries which have drafted the federal constitution that caters for all communities. Although there are some difficulties in Ethiopia today, with time, the things will improve.

However, in South Sudan the first thing to be done is to acknowledge in action that tribes exist instead of letting ourselves to be overwhelmed by unjustified nationalistic feelings that do not help the country.

As a reality of South Sudan, most South Sudanese consider themselves as nationalists when face with problems but as soon as they use nationalistic approach to overcome the problems, they lapse into their tribal cocoons and then start running a nation like a tribal joint venture.

The statement in the above paragraph applies to all tribes in South Sudan not only Dinka. For instance, what has shielded other tribes from being seen as practising tribalism in administration is because of the lack of opportunity and power. If they take power today, they will behave exactly the same way as they see view Dinka and many people including Dinka people will start complaining against them of corruption and other vices.

Hence, tribes and tribal influence is part of our lives and its acknowledgement that they exist and there is need to tackle them should be the first step in South Sudanese nation building.

The next step is to find a way how to redefine the relations between different tribes in South Sudan in order to make them feel part of South Sudan. This is because the redefinition will help people have access to resources.

It is in relation to the above I strongly support the establishment of twenty eight (28) States in South Sudan. Though the creation of 28 States might have been done with political motive, it is one of political accidents that may help South Sudan to redefine identity politics that will help South Sudan to build strong political community in future.

The establishment of ten (10) States was a great mistake and if South Sudan would continue with the same arrangement, there would have been risks of different tribes exterminating themselves under inefficient and corrupt governors.

The mess was done through putting people who did not have common interests together under governors who were morally, economically and socially corrupt. Those governors knew nothing in regard to administration but only how to accumulate wealth and acquire the latest car models.

The example of the above governors was those governors of Upper Nile State, Unity State and Lakes State who failed to improve the welfare or protect the citizens of South Sudan, and instead, exploited the system to their advantage. As a result, citizens suffered under them to a great deal.

Therefore, though many complain against the establishment of 28 States, it is necessity as well as a matter of survival for other communities in South Sudan. Gok State is one of those States, which communities see its establishment as a matter of necessity rather than politics.

Nonetheless, many have expressed the view that establishing more states than ten states was violation of peace agreement. This view is unwarranted and it shows that most of these South Sudanese who complain are detached from realities of South Sudan.

In my view, establishment of 28 States is one of the opportunities that South Sudanese have deserved and it will contribute to the stability and peace in South Sudan.

The only thing that needs to be done now is to ensure that a committee is set up to determine claims of other people who complain that their land has been grabbed and if this claim is proved then their rights should be given to them through creating of other more states.

In relation to the creation of more States, many so-called intellectuals and nationalists of South Sudan have expressed the concern that resources are limited and establishing more states will undermine development. This argument shows that these nationalists have failed to understand that resources will never be enough and what matters is the political will to equitably distribute the resources.

For example, there are countries like South Sudan in terms of size and resources but have more states than South Sudan. The examples of these countries are Nigeria which has 36 States, Mexico which has 31 States and India which has 29 States. All these countries are like South Sudan in size and resources or even smaller with lesser resources, which means that resources are not problems but how such resources are distributed is the question.

Hence, associating creation of states with resources only without considering other factors will always be a problem. This is why the creation of 28 States has generated various arguments and the outstanding argument among all the arguments put forward is that creation of 28 States is the risk of creating tribal communities.

In their view, the very logic of identity politics reinforces hierarchies, leads to exist-essentialism and stereotyping, give rise to the perils of authenticity, leads to cooperation, and displaces healthier and more democratic forms of class-based or interests based politics. Thus, they argue that the political institutions, on this account should be designed to discourage rather than enable or facilitate identity politics. This view is too simplistic.

In my view as supported by some writers, the above argument is wrong. This is because the sort of sweeping condemnation of identity politics as expressed above is both unrealistic and unwarranted.

It is unrealistic because identity politics is inherent part of tribes and democratic societies in general. Hence, an attempt to do away with it overnight without being subjected to slow and steady transformation may be counterproductive due the resistance by the tribes to the changes.

Contrary to the argument of these self-proclaim intellectuals, identity politics is a neutral thing and its response is conditioned by the national policies. If the country has bad policies, then the people will be divided through discrimination, and as a result, the identity politics may be negative. But if the goal of a country is to build more egalitarian society, then, the people will be transformed into a strong nation by putting their identity politics together into national identity politics.

Identity politics is part of human society that will never be eliminated. It always goes away when there are no problems but as soon as problems emerge the identity politics resurfaces. In this regard, identity politics is part of South Sudanese communities as rooted in the history of South Sudanese in relation to Sudan as a country.

The former Sudanese governments used South Sudanese identity politics to divide and rule them and the legacy of that divisive action is the one we still see in action today in South Sudan and it will not disappear in the foreseeable future.

Hence, there is a need to deconstruct the history of suspicion and misgiving that was created by Sudan among South Sudanese through the negative use of identity politics. The national policy of South Sudan should therefore aim at building trust and sense of belonging among South Sudanese.

Building trust and sense of belonging needs the change of the style of governance not the change of identity politics. The risk is that if the government concentrates on fighting identity politics with the aim of destroying tribal affiliation, the conflict is bound to arise.

The conflict will arise because many citizens in South Sudan see government in term of tribes and any action done by the government irrespective of motive of doing it will always be interpreted with misgiving and suspicion. As a result, there will be no political support from the public.

As we all know, where the public does not support the national policy, such a policy will never be effective. Thus, the first step as already stated above is to leave these tribes in their natural setting as the government continues to create trust and sense of belonging to the nation by these tribes. This can be done through creating states in accordance with communities, which is done through the creation of 28 States.

If some communities, as I have already pointed out above, complain that their land is grabbed and given to other communities in the process of the creation of 28 States, then, these complaints should be determined through legal means how genuinely they are.

The criteria to be used in determining their claims should be based on history before Sudan divided South Sudan. This will help to settle the conflicts that were created by Sudan in dividing Southern Sudan into provinces.

Finally, it should be noted that identity politics is important if correctly determined and used by the State as it helps to redress injustice against minority groups and deepens democracy in the country.

It is, therefore, the role of public institutions to formulate policies that encourage healthy identity politics. Thus, public institutions are important in this regard.

Whether identity politics has negative effects depends on whether those in charge of public institutions are aware of these potential effects and whether they have the desire and capacity to mitigate them.

Of course, it has be borne in mind that public institutions may be shaped by their own internal power dynamics as they have their own diverse motives, which need to be considered when predicting the effects of identity politics.

To avoid negative identity politics, the States must provide space for forms of political consideration, public deliberation and legal reasoning that allow for identity based class making, and that compel public institutions to develop procedures and guidelines that ensure the observance of constitutional principles of rule of law and respect for human rights.

In summary, confronting realities as they are, is important as it is the part of solution to the problems of South Sudan. Building strong State where justice, liberty and prosperity are achieved means promoting interests of all South Sudanese which can only be realized when identity politics is identified and protected.

South Sudan is nothing but aggregate of tribes who have various interests that South Sudanese government must protect. A unity achieved by just throwing citizens into groups where they suffer indefinite is not unity desired in South Sudan.

The author is South Sudanese lawyer in Uganda and can be reached through: +256783579256; juoldaniel@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.

About Post Author