Realpolitik and National Cohesiveness in the Republic of South Sudan (Part 1)
BY AROP MADUT-AROP, Juba, South Sudan
July 15, 2016 (SSB) — Following the events of the last few days in Juba and elsewhere in our beloved and troubled ridden young nation, I thought it would be important to publish a chapter in the manuscript of my new book, entitled food for thought. I am making this chapter available to my compatriots in the hope that our politicians will be incensed and desist from violence as the sufferers on both sides in the political spectrum. Below are excerpts from the Book:
When South Sudan emerged into statehood on July 9th 2011, its future survivability as a nation state was pegged on whether the SPLM historic leaders would successfully organise it politically, socially and economically. The second question which readily comes to the mind of the public was whether the leadership in the young republic will hold all their diverse nationalities, who are still living in primordial era, together as they proceed to bring progress and prosperity to their country. Because of the validity of two questions, I will attempt to discuss them jointly one after another.
Firstly, the politicians in the youngest republic in effort to build a peaceful prosperous nation, must find a rallying point that would bring all the diverse nationalities that have been affected by the five decades old conflict to one fold in order to embrace nationalism, instead of tribalism. One classic example, which I believe can back up my argument is that; when Southern Sudanese of all political persuasions joined the Anya Nya war in the sixties and early seventies, the main rallying point that made them joined the war, was because they wanted to liberate their country from the Arab domination, regardless to any sort of underlying ideology of any leaders of the Anya Nya Movement.
Fundamentally, the apparent threat posed by the military regime of General Abboud when it imposed policies of Arabicisation and Islamisation on non-Muslim in the South, brought all Southern Sudanese together and faced one common enemy. As the military regime became increasingly oppressive, both government officials, youth and students left the country in droves and joined the brewing Any Nya organisation, regardless of any underlying ideology pursued by the Anya Nya leaders. During that time, the choice for ever southerner was between enduring oppression and subjugation or join the liberation struggle in order to fight for freedom and self- esteemed. In the end all the South Sudanese embraced the latter choice.
During the second war (the SPLA war 1983-2005), the situation was different. While some of South Sudanese joined the war apparently because they were attracted by the SPLM ideology of creating a united secular New Sudan that would accommodate all its diversities, others joined the struggle in order to resume the Anya Nya war of total liberation of an independent South Sudan, a demand which was halted by the Addis Ababa Accord of 1972. But as South Sudan has become a free state and the old common enemy gone, the members of the ruling SPLM Party, and other South Sudanese political parties that would like to come to power, must look for a rallying point that will bring or keep the population together embracing South Sudanese nationalism rather than tribalism that would tear them apart;’ as they start arguing which of the tribal leaders one should follow. In my humble opinion, this should be the guiding principle for the start of real-politick and national cohesiveness in the newly born country.
The second issue to discuss is that, as South Sudan has become an independent country, it is high time for the politicians, the new and the old, to sit down and spell out the political ideology of their respective political parties, whether the existing ones or the ones they would like to launch to give the citizens wide choice to decide what party with convincing ideology and socio economic programmes to follow with. Having formed well organise parties politically and ideologically with national outlook, it would be very necessary for the leaders of the new country to educate their cadres about the party ideology and socio economic programmes and how these programmes would lead their country forward progress and prosperity.
Having chosen ideologically and politically based parties, it is assumed that, that party has basic disciplines and code of conduct. The role of the party leaderships will therefore be to try and instil party discipline and nationalism which all the supporters can adhere to. If on the other hand, the supporters discover that the leaders of their party do not have programmes of action which they think will not bring sustainable socioeconomic development to their country, their support will wane away dramatically. This can happen, especially when personal and ideological interests of the supporters clash with that of the lead members.
One vital factor that can sway away non-ideologically committed party supporters and join other parties has to do with the behaviour of the lead members of the party. In order to avoid losing supporters in droves, the lead party members must try their level best to keep their differences out of the public glare, sharing and nursing their differences in close doors meetings. This is necessary in order to avoid political wrangling. Bug when political wrangling become an open secret, the party cadres will take that, the lead members have failed their own party; hence the need to join other parties.
In brief, a party which is well organised politically, ideologically with national outlook and mass support, will always stand on strong ground to come to power. For the sake of party survival and continuity, the lead members of a given party must therefore continue to train new young leaders and prepare them to take over the party leadership which will continue to lead the party back to power or come to power in case of the ones that are vying for power.
Arguably, when there is a nonstop political bickering in a party or that party is deviating from its original principles of cohesiveness and comradeship, many cadres can join other parties whose political agenda meets their own political leaning. This is natural and the supporters who leave their old party should not be considered as enemies by the party that they have just abandoned.
In the past southerners who hold different political views were called enemies instead of political opponents. In really politics, the people with diverging views within one party or supporters of the opposing parties, are called opponents and not enemies because their only difference is in approach of how to manage affairs in their country. Indeed, political differences and divergent views within the party or across the board is what make democracy works with few ups and downs.
Importance of ideology in party politics and implications
As South Sudanese continue to progress to maturity politically speaking, in order to organise political parties in the young republic, both the old and the new, is for the like-minded group who agree to form a political party is to come together first, discuss and decide on the ideology that the party should adopt; conservative oriented, socialist leaning or liberal. In other words, a political party that is being groomed must also decide first the mode of socio-economic development that the party would like to adopt and follow; capitalist, socialist of mix economy system.
The next approach will be for the party to seek registration of the party in accordance to the existing laws in the country. After a political party is registered the next move will be for the party to hold national convention in which the Party leadership will be elected. It will mean that, the party is ready to contest in any general election that will decide whether it comes to power or join the opposition.
The second important thing, both the new and old political parties in South Sudan, should take note of, is that in the pre and post-independence periods, numerous political parties sprung up because of what they called the SPLM exclusive policies. In the process the political leaders of those parties did not apparently bother and clearly define their party ideology and objectives. When it came to recruiting supporters, those who called themselves as party leaders, just recruited whoever had expressed his/her intention and willingness to support a political organisation.
In reality people can join a political organisation when its objectives are clearly defined and convincing. At this juncture one can safely state that, many supporters of political parties organised and launched soon after 2005, did not join them because of the parties, socio-economic programme but were rather attracted by the personality cult of a person leading that political organisation.
Significantly, one can safely say that, the only situation that people can join political organisation regardless of whether such organisation has a defined political ideology or lack of it, is only when there is an inherent threat against the entire community and when a political organisation pledges to protect their interests as a matter of life or death as was in the Anya Nya and SPLA wars of liberation.
In conclusion, it is instructive to stress that, if there was no question of ideology during the Arab colonial era and during the interim period. But now that the people of South Sudan have country of their own, politicians must first come up with their political agenda and programmes of actions before thinking of launching political parties.
In summary, when one has an order party, the next move is the registration which would be followed by the recruitments of committed cadres, and the holding of conferences in which the party leaderships will be elected. It would be then that the leaders can be ready to contest in any general elections that could bring them back to power, or pose as an alternative to the party that has obtained majority of votes in a general elections and form the government when it can become a ruling party.
Hon. Arop Madut Arop, a journalist by training, is the national MP for Abyei in Juba, and author of two books, “Sudan’s Painful Road to Peace: A Full Story of the Founding and Development of SPLM/SPLA (2006)” and “The Genesis of Political Consciousness in South Sudan (2012),” plus a number of unpublished books. He can be reached at gotnyiel122@hotmail.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, city and the country you are writing.
About Post Author
