Realpolitik and National Cohesiveness in the Republic of South Sudan (Part 2)
13 min readBy HON AROP MADUT AROP (MP), Juba, South Sudan
July 26, 2016 (SSB) — In part one of my previous article, I discussed briefly, the need for south Sudanese to reorganise themselves politically and ideologically. The first article discussed, also urged South Sudanese politicians to find a rallying point, a factor that will bring all their amalgam of nationalities together, as we move our young country forward to progress and prosperity. In this second part of my article, as food for thought, I will discuss two other factors as food for thought for our politicians; the new and the old. The first section of the article is urging politicians to avoid schism and bickering in their political parties. This is because of the negative impact the political bickering and schism bring to bear on the people they intend to lead.
The second section will also discuss two detrimental cultures in our society of: an injury to one is an injury to all and revenge killing. As promised in my previous article, I am making this piece again as food for thought to political party leaders in the hope that they will be incensed and desist from causing violence among members of their society through bickering and schism; as the sufferers caused by their political disenchantment and wrangling on both sides in the political spectrum are their innocent voters who would vote them into power in any future general elections. Below we discuss two sections, political Bickering and its implications and the culture of unwarranted collective fights as well as revenge killing which have been stemmed out in many civilised countries of the world.
POLITICAL BICKERING, SCHISM AND ITS IMPLICATIONS
Fundamentally, political bickering and schism in party politics is not healthy because it can bring ruins to their country. The recent bitter political wrangling and disenchantment in the SPLM party leadership of 2013, is the case in point because it plunged the country headlong into unprecedented bloody crisis with huge costs of thousands lives and properties whose end is unpredictable. The current events of the last two weeks in our country which have brought additional burdens and sufferings to our ever resilient people are also the result of the political wrangling among our political parties.
Principally, political bickering and schism in any political party is never healthy at all, as demonstrated in the subsequent narratives from three African nations: Ghana, Nigeria and Sudan as soon as they became politically independent from Britain in 1956, 1957 and 1960 respectively.
Firstly, we all know that Ghana was the first African Sub Saharan country to obtain its political power from Britain in 1957. The years that followed Ghana independence, were marked by political bickering and wrangling, which led to the overthrow of President Dr Kwame Nkrumah, in 1967 by General Joseph Ankara, who accused him for deviating from the democratic principles and was taking the country to the then socialist bloc of nations.
During that period (1945-1992), the world was divided into two dangerously opposing blocs, capitalist and socialist. On the one side, was the capitalist group of nations, collectively called the first developed world and which was headed by the United States of America. On the other side, was the socialist bloc of nations or the socialist camp that became known as the second developed world and which was led by the defunct Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Remarkably, the two blocs embarked on what became known as the cold war period; during which each of the two blocs tried to outwit or outshine the other. Subsequently, the two camps began to campaign desperately using all means available in effort to win over the small nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America which the two blocs called the third world countries or developing countries.
In effort to avoid being torn apart by the two opposing blocs, four leaders emerged from the middle of nowhere and initiated a third bloc or a midway bloc. The third world bloc as it was called also desperately began to woo small nations from Latin America, Asia and Africa. The leaders of the third world bloc were Marshal Josef Bronze Tito of Yugoslavia, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nero of India, President of Ghana, Dr Kwame Nkrumah and President Jamal Abdel Nasir of Egypt. The four third world leaders subsequently met and formed what became known as Non-Align Movement. Essentially, the Non Align Movement brought majority of the third world countries into its organisation. The Non Align Movement remained pro-active until the end of the cold war with the collapsed of the Soviet Union, the centre of the Socialist Bloc or the second developed world.
It was during one of the None Align Movement Conferences in in Indonesia in 1967, just ten years on, that the Ghana President, Dr Kwame Nkrumah, apparently with the tacit connivance from the first world bloc, was overthrown by General Joseph Ankara who accused his regime of corrupt practices and continuous political wrangling with the opposition parties who were opposed to what he called communistic policies. General Joseph Ankra military junta was subsequently overthrown by General Afiffa after ruling the country for a number of years. General Afiffa accused the Ankra regime of mismanagement of affairs in the Country through ceaseless, bickering and national disenchantment in the country.
Few years on, General Affifa military junta, was equally overthrown by General Achaempong. The military government of General Achaempong who also took over in a bloody military coup that brought Flight Lieutenant Jerry Rawlings to power. After ruling Ghana for a number of years and discovering that, ceaseless political bickering and schism between his regime and political leaders who were opposed to military dictatorship, would take Ghana nowhere, President Jerry Rawlings conceded power to an elected President, and retired honourably. Hence democracy was apparently restored for ever.
The second example which I hope will make South Sudanese politicians shun political wrangling and schism, is also the experience of the Republic of Nigeria. In 1960, Nigeria became an independent Republic from Britain. The Republic of Nigeria started well as a democratic republic under the first elected President Dr Azikiwe with Tafawa Balewa as Prime Minister. Few years after independent, President Azikiwe’s Government was overthrown by General Johnson Ironzi, who accused the regime of politicians for ceaseless political bickering and schism. The overthrow of the elected regime of Azikiwe and Balewa unfortunately provoked the Biafra conflict which almost broke Nigeria into a number of states.
After ruling the country for a number of years and apparently for provoking the Biafra war, General Ironzi was overthrown by General Yacobu Gown. Despite having defeated the Biafran separatist movement and managed to reunite Nigeria, General Gown military junta was subsequently taken over in another military coup d’etat led by General Murtala Mohamed who was unfortunately killed during the military scuffles and General Obasanjo took over power.
After ruling the country for a number of years, General Obasanjo with tacit influence from the western democracies, handed over power to an elected President Sheikh Shagari. President Shagari was also overthrown by General Ibrahim Babangida, who was also overthrown by General Muhammadu Buhari. General Muhammadu Buhari was subsequently ousted by General San Abache; who too was overthrown by General Abdel Salam Abaker.
After ruling the country for a number of years which witnessed relative calm and progress, General Abdel Salam Abaker, finally handed over the power to an elected President YarArdwa, thereby bringing to an end the combined military and political schism and wrangling in the Nigerian body politic.
The third classic example, to look at, in effort to find out how ceaseless unbridle political wrangling can negatively impact the country progress and its people, has also to do with the Sudan democratic experiences (1958-986). As, we all know, Sudan obtained its political independence from Britain in 1956, and Ismail al Azhari whose Democratic Unionist Party won the pre-independence elections, became Sudan first Prime minister.
In the subsequent Sudan first post-independence, democratic general elections, the UMMA Party won general elections and Abdalla Bey Khalil became the second elected prime minister. But because of the vainglorious political wrangling and schism between the DUP and UMMA parties, General Ibrahim Abboud, seized power in a bloodless coup in November in 1958, only just seven months following the general elections. General Abboud was overthrown in October, 1964 by a combined military and popular uprising. In April 1965 the second democratic elections were conducted and because no party brought absolute majority members to parliament, a coalition government between the UMMA and DUP parties was put in place. But as the political parties resumed their previous vainglorious bickering; and schism especially between the two major parties DUP and UMMA parties, the military led by Major General Jaafer Nimeiri took the reins of power and outlawed the regime of the political parties and ruled the country for the next one and half decades.
Like in October 1964, General Jaafer Mohamed Nimeiri’s was also ousted from power by a combined military and civilian uprising by 1985 the third democratic general elections were held, in 1986. But after just three and half years on, due to continuous vainglorious political disenchantment in the country and bickering, between the two major parties and the National Islamic Front that had just come to the fore as a third powerful party, the democratic regime of the political parties was taken over again in a military coup by Brigadier General Omar Hassan Ahmed al Bashir with the direct support of the National Islamic Party led by Dr Hassan Abdalla al Turabi. General Omar al Bashir in his key note address to the nation when he took over power accused the regime of politicians for continuous political bickering and schism without moving the country forward to progress and prosperity.
Summing up this piece, I would like to remind South Sudanese politicians not fall into the Ghana, Nigeria and Sudan bitter experiences, and most recently the schism and bickering in the SPLM party, which resulted in the most unprecedented horrific, senseless loss of lives, unnecessary destruction to their country and untold sufferings and hardships to their traumatized people. I now turn and discuss, as food for thought, another outdated detrimental culture. Please bear with me
THE CULTURE OF AN INJURY TO ONE, AN INJURY TO ALL AND ITS IMPLICATIONS.
The final factor that must be looked at critically as food for thought, which I hope, South Sudanese intellectuals and politicians must think about them seriously and critically, has also to do with the time honoured culture of an injury to one is an injury to all and which remarkably contributed negatively to the December 15th 2013.
At this juncture it will also be instructive to answer one vital question and that is, what will be the role of the South Sudanese intellectuals to eradicate such a detrimental culture and their efforts for the promotion of one South Sudanese nationalism, national reconciliation, national healing and national cohesiveness; once peace reigned? This culture is very important to discuss for the benefit of both, South Sudanese intellectuals, in general, and the South Sudanese youths in particular.
General speaking, the culture of an injury to one is an injury to all, had been one of the causes of instability among the southern Sudanese tribes since time immemorial. It might have also, directly or indirectly, contributed negatively to the December fifteenth 2013 crisis, which bedevilled the young republic; making it a laughing stock in the eyes of the international community. This outdated culture which have continuously brought about unnecessary loss of many lives and particularly among the cattle owning tribes, should thoroughly be discussed with the aim of how to address it. The continuation of such detrimental and divisive culture must be blamed on the failure of South Sudanese intellectuals being the cream of their societies.
As the cream of the society, intellectuals of all categories should have lived up and must live up, to their commitment to organise and educate their people. Shamefully, instead of acting as the cream of their society, they just continue and remain primordial and parochial in their thinking and behaviour. Very few of them do try to educate or organise their people who continue to remain even unaware of the behaviour of the people who claim to be their leaders and whom they can blindly vote into power in the hope that they may turn around and pull them out of ignorance and socio-economic backwardness.
As the cream of their society, I am urging, the South Sudanese intellectuals and the youths, in particular, that they must meet, as soon as peace is achieved, discuss and devise ways and means as to how to make their people abandon their time honoured detrimental culture of injury to one is an injury to all, revenge killing as well as the culture of cattle rustling. Although the former had enabled our people, in the past when they successfully fought wars against their enemies, it is high time to abandon this culture now that we have a country of our own.
Furthermore, and in order to avoid continued unnecessary collective fights and the notorious revenge killing which had bedeviled our people for centuries and which contributed negatively to the 2013 December crisis, the young republic must include a clause in the upcoming permanent constitution that shall outlaw the culture of an injury to one individual is an injury to the community in which he lived. The expected clause in the permanent constitution must request the injured to take the person that had injured him to the police and to the law court to answer the charge brought against him. This should be the collective responsibilities of the leaders of political parties to instill in the minds of their supporters and especially the youths, the leaders of tomorrow all over the country. The educationists in the classrooms must also instill eradication of these outdated detrimental cultures in the minds of their students.
Equally, another bad culture that must also be outlawed; is the revenge killing. In both cultures, where an individual can automatically join a quarrel or fight that does not directly affect him in addition to the collective revenge killing must be outlawed. In this connection the law must state explicitly that any person who joins the fight that does not affect him directly, must go to jail for a specific long terms that the constitution shall provide. This will mean that, civic lessons on this divisive cultures of revenge killing and joining a fight that does not directly affect an individual, should be part and parcel in school syllabus in accordance to the upcoming draft of our permanent constitution. This must be the role of South Sudanese intellectuals who claim to be national leaders and who, at the same time, remain primordial and parochial in their thinking and behavior. The intellectuals must now start without delay to educate themselves of how to be nationalistic; it will be then that they will, in turn, educate their respective constituents.
As educationist, I am aware that education is a slow process but it is worth an attempt and worth undertaking. Additionally, the urge to loot cattle or take side in any unprovoked fight, particularly by the cattle owning nationalities which was one of causes that led to the death of thousands of innocent people during the Anya Nya/ SPLM wars; has also been the cause of instability among the people of our people even long after our country had become independent. It has also, unfortunately, caused the loss of thousands of innocent lives in the last fifteen years since the descent of peace on our country 2005-2016. Unless these damaging culture are stemmed out completely by no other persons than the youths and intellectuals, any future efforts and attempt to start building a nation called South Sudan, will be like chasing the wind.
If the two cultures outlined above are not addressed sooner than later, they will continue to be the causes for continuous future disunity and instability in South Sudan. They will also be future hindrance to the progress of our people. During the December crisis, for instance the entire world was laughing at South Sudanese; just only two years of independence and were not only brutally killing themselves but vandalizing their own cities— destroying all their own resources given to them by people of good will who assisted them in effort to pull our young state out of the age-long state of backwardness.
Finally, all of us in this young country must join hands together in effort to build one nationalism; bring about national cohesiveness, which will, undoubtedly bring about, all South Sudanese, of all tribes together and avoid uncalled for future wars which are always caused by our outdated cultures. We must stem out all these destructive elements from our societies, because, the victims of such wars; are relatives on both sides namely, our poor innocent natives. The cities we vandalize or willfulluy destroyed during the conflicts are also our own, which we built from scratch. Indeed, rebuilding the destroyed cities that are willfully vandalize by us; will be likened to a person forced by circumstances to eat his own vomits; very painful role of intellectuals.
Hon. Arop Madut Arop, MP representing Abyei constituency in the South Sudan national assembly, is a trained journalist and the author of two books: Sudan Painful Road to Peace (2006) and The Genesis of Political Consciousness in South Sudan (2012). He is also the author of a number of unpublished books, one from which these excerpts were extracted. He can be reached at gotnyiel122@hotmail,com
About Post Author
