By Deng de Monychol Lueth, Brisbane, Australia
A lie to the poor is in that catchy-virus-like vision’s phrase.
“Taking towns to the people” by employment is evil indeed.
Its prescriptions are designed to cure political job seekers.
A village dweller is told a town is being brought to you but
A new governor here and new county commissioner there;
No show of delivery for the things that make town a town.
How can a town be brought without roads, without peace?
Without security, without infrastructure and social services?
It is decentralisation or policy of devolution by evil deeds.
A bait perfected as a tool for political control of key pawns.
Nothing to do with town development, none whatsoever.
It doesn’t offer what Dr John Garang wanted in its creeds.
It offers rhetoric to people and substance to decree maker,
Satisfaction of new government salary for new appointees;
Real wars and invisible wars of vision misinterpretations.
The future of my country is in jeopardy.
Town development strategy is in custody
Imprisoned by SPLM advocates and surrogates
Of SPLM IGs, IOs, IG-IOs, IG-IO-IGs, FDs, and DCs
Who lied and used it as a synecdoche for what it is not;
Proliferation of state governments without development
So catchy multitude of worshippers gather when they sing it
To create more than 10 states, fully bringing division to people.
Division like the ever-disturbing separation of my close-knit community.
Division by emphasising what divides people, such as governance by ethnicity.
Listen people: “Taking towns to people” does not mean new states, new counties.
“Taking towns to people” is about urban development and creation of towns with land use for
Residential, commercial, recreational, transport activities, community facilities and social services.
A lie is told with that catchy-virus-like vision’s phrase
Because it is a popular slogan that earns sweet praises.
But a promise of town breeds disillusionments in town.
Jubilee today for the decreeing of new county or state.
Tomorrow, development is still in decay after decades.
Many wonder why development is still lagging behind.
Did you get things that make town a town after 28 states?
Roads, housing, water mains, power lines, schools, clinic, market,
Pubs, communication towers, sewer lines, freedom squares, etc.?
Did you get them in your capital city during the reign of ten states?
If not, then believe it, your capital city is a slum city in its own place.
Did you see real development in your new state or new county?
They asked curiously not knowing TTP is spatial and economic.
Constituency Development Funds (CDFs) end up nowhere.
These CDFs should be used to implement town plans locally.
Naming village as town does not give it town’s functions,
Nor does it implement infrastructure projects locally.
Towns should be vibrant hubs of commerce,
Co-existence, creativity and ethnic diversity,
Not tribal enclaves hosting one identical ethnicity.
After all, diverse people died in towns for our liberty.
Boma’s name is everywhere for its liberation vitality.
It is immoral to con a man for the promise of a town.
That is conning in the name of development and modernity.
Sad! “Taking towns to people” (TTP) has been taken as euphemism
For the decentralised system of governance and power devolution
And in essence, this is the greatest lie.
Don’t allow a polly to falsify the truth; don’t fall for polly’s pomposity.
Ask a polly to show you things that make town a town.
Things that will make that isolated village a future town.
TTP is the euphemism of urbanisation
And rural-urban governance
Of social, economic development in rural township,
A town planning “vision, policy and slogan” for decentralisation
Of development within a decentralised system of governance.
TTP sounds sweet in many people’s ears for a good reason.
People love TTP, people want improvement in quality of life.
It was envisioned by John Garang as a “vision, policy and slogan”
To improve the quality of life of South Sudanese in rural areas
To prevent them from overcrowding in slums
To prevent rural-urban migration in post-CPA era.
It means decentralisation by development, not by employment.
In the exact words of Dr John Garang
During his 2005 CPA signing speech in Nairobi,
TTP was intended to change “the urban-based
And centre of focus development paradigm
In favour of rural and decentralized development”
To address the fundamental issue of underdevelopment
And foster rural development in South Sudan
Through priorities of “rural small town planning and
And rural electrification.”
TPP focuses on decentralised development; and the intent to change capital city
From Juba to Ramciel – Garang’s archetypal capital city
In the centre of South Sudan – epitomises this objective
Of Dr Garang’s development strategy.
The idea, that TTP is euphemism for decentralized system of governance
And thus a potent justification for more states, is a greatest lie.
Power decentralization is not the same as development decentralization,
This constitutes wrong interpretation of Dr Garang’s development strategy.
TTP is used today by pollies as hyperbole to give rhetoric (nothing) to villagers.
That is not what Dr John Garang intended it for; and thus, that is the greatest lie.
Notes about the poem CDFs = Constituency Development Funds
CPA = Comprehensive Peace Agreement
TTP = Taking Towns to People
SPLM =Sudan People’s Liberation Movement
SPLM_IGs, = SPLM In Government
SPLM_IOs = SPLM In Opposition
SPLM_IG-IOs = SPLM In Government in opposition
SPLM_IG-IO-IGs = SPLM In Government in opposition in government SPLM_FDs = SPLM Former Detainees
SPLM_DCs = SPLM for Democratic Change
By Deng de Monychol Lueth
© 2017 [March 2)
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 firstname.lastname@example.org. SSB do reserve the right to edit material before publication. Please include your full name, email address and the country you are writing from.