President Kiir: The unity of the country is not determined by the number of states it has

Posted: January 15, 2017 by PaanLuel Wël Media Ltd. in Columnists, Daniel Juol Nhomngek, Opinion Articles, Opinion Writers

President Kiir has increased the number of states from 28 to 31, with the introduction of these new states, most in the IO controlled areas of Nuerland: Bieh, Akobo, Latjor , Maiwut, Tambura, Gbudwe, Central Upper Nile and Northern Upper Nile. Yet, The unity of the country does not depend on a number of states a country has but on the good administration and exemplary leadership

By Daniel Juol Nhomngek, Kampala, Uganda

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

January 15, 2017 (SSB) —- When the CPA was signed ten states were created but what did we have? Corruption and citizens killing each other were common yet there was no war. Many people complain today that creating more states is not good for development but what do they understand by the term development?

What is important, is it to have few states or is it to have more states to protect citizens so that they live free of fear and develop their own self-reliance mechanisms?  In my understanding what is important for the development of any country and people are not few states but protection of citizens externally and internally so that they are free from fear and be able to engage in economic activities.

There is a different between development of a country and a number of states that the country, may have. The country may have few states but will not develop but some countries may have many states but develop.

What complicates the matter in South Sudan is the fact that people associates states with money and employment which is misunderstanding of what South Sudan as a country is. Whereas the purpose of the country is to create employment for every citizen, it is not worthwhile for a country like South Sudan to encourage dependent syndrome.

When we were under few states we used to get a lot of money and could not think of any problems so everybody just sat under a tree like we still do today hoping to get free money. Therefore, politics became as it is now the easiest way of getting into power in order to get money and because of that politics was extended up to the family levels and families were divided.

In addition, people learned how to lie and honesty was thrown to dogs because individuals did not want to tell the truth lest they will be quoted. Corruption as it is now became order of the day. People even those who were living under the worse roofs instead of building good houses bought cars that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Because they just get the money for free.

Today, there is a vacuum as many are sleeping with empty stomachs because money is no longer there. Instead of reflecting over their contributions to the problems of South Sudan they are now looking at more states as the source of their predicaments.

Moreover, they contradict themselves that more states lead to corruption and at the same time they are saying that no money under more states but if no money under more states then where do these people they accuse of stealing money get it from? That is a fallacy of their argument!

What I wanted to say about corruption is that all human beings are inherently corrupt because corruption is putting personal interests above other peoples’ interests. Hence, what controls individuals from corrupting the system is the strong system itself. So, corruption is independent of the number of States therefore, I do not accept the argument that more states increase corruption.

It is sad to say some people even go to the extent of saying that under more states money goes into few people pockets but if that is the case, it is different from what used to happen when we were under few states?  As far as I know fewer than ten states money used to be pocketed by few who were in politics and at the same time could not even protect citizens. Thus, citizens were the losers in term of development and security.

My position is that it is even important to create hundred states so that no free money should come to everyone. This is because it will make us learn how to work hard to get our own money and spend it wisely instead of getting money for free that may throw the country into dependent syndromes.

Furthermore, I must add that t is even better for the country to go bankrupt if the people are able to be protected rather than individuals becoming rich at the expenses of the majority.

For all these reasons, I pity those who say that more states are not needed in South Sudan as they may lead into disunity. This is based on the belief that they create disunity as the proponents of this argument believe that unity comes through putting people together even those who are incompatibly related.

What they need to know is that unity of the people does not come through putting people together like goats or cows but it is an organic process which is achieved through slow natural coming together by the people.

People come naturally together to form one unit not because they are force to do so but because they benefit from coming together. The unity of the people, therefore, does not depend on a number of states a country may have but on good administration.

The clear example to the effect that the unity of the country does not depend on the number of states is that of Sudan before the breaking away of South Sudan. Sudan before the independence of South Sudan was stated to be the largest country in Africa followed by Democratic Republic of Congo but these two countries had never been at peace within themselves though Sudan had few states as well as DR. Congo, which still has few states today,

In general, the confusion we have today about more states does not come from rural people but from some few individuals who claim that they are educated yet they do not even know what is good for themselves leave alone the people of South Sudan.

If I ask them to explain the difference between the lives of South Sudanese under few states from the period of 2005-2015, they will not tell me any difference except that there used to be a lot of money under few states but went into few pockets of individuals.  Hence, the whole thing becomes a fused argument and baseless.

NB//: the author is South Sudanese Lawyer residing in Uganda and can be reached through:

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 SSB do reserve the right to edit material before publication. Please include your full name, email address, city and the country you are writing from.

  1. Intellectual says:

    Now is he going to amend the constitution to in cooperate the new state or they are going to opperationalize them without constitutional legality? And if he is going to amend the constitution. How many times is he going to amend the constitution? Kiir mayardit is completely sick, he should attend to his detorating mentality rather than shocking us now and then… Kiir mayardit is totally out of his sense, he have destroyed South Sudan beyond reasonable doubt..


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s