President Kiir should give real powers to the Steering Committee for National Dialogue

Posted: June 6, 2017 by PaanLuel Wël Media Ltd. in Columnists, Commentary, Contributing Writers, Machar Dhieu, Opinion Articles, Opinion Writers

Provisional Committee for National Dialogue is always given powers, chance to critic or questions those in power and instructs them to give solution to problem in the country.

By Daniel Machar Dhieu, Juba, South Sudan

National Dialouge Steering Committee

National Dialouge Steering Committee.jpg

June 6, 2017 (SSB) — First and foremost, I would like to convey my greetings to my fellow South Sudanese plus all the readers who may have opportunity to go through this article. Our nation is currently led by dreadful ideologies, fraudulent and awful hearts.  Those have lost all the morals integrity in leading us. We have lost the spirit of nationalism to eradicate the right technique to national capacity building and peace building.

I don’t consider myself among the majority of neutrals I do protests on how this country is mishandle, am not in budge with frustrated majority who feel helpless and too scared to speak anything who are indeed silence, and experience worry on South Sudan national security lethal behaviors. In fact I’m not against any proposal that will bring peace to our nation.

Honestly, I would like to share my opinion to public on National Dialogue initiated by the HE Salva Kiir Mayardit, President of the Republic of South Sudan to interview the problem and find solution to ongoing war across the nation in-accordance to compromise peace agreement signed two years ago between the government and arms opposition party (SPLM-IO) negotiated by IGAD, although some people may get resentful to my article I will still remain a South Sudanese die-heart citizen continuing with national opinion poll.

Actually this national dialogue initiated by the president will not bring final resolution or tranquil to our nation if not politically guided well with principle of national dialogue. This process will indeed provoke the situation to local people; the government has blackmail the country by using unenthusiastic principle of dictatorship in-order to remain in power for good years.

The whole nation is misinform by the government engine loaders to avail book wrap to make citizens confuse and definitely silence the citizen by creating assignment (Project) to their colleagues that were having no room to enjoy or corrupting national affairs, this project will again consumes our resource without even producing solution to the conflict. The project is branded with especially name National Dialogue to convene the regional and international countries.

The so-called national dialogue of South Sudan is difference from other world national dialogue category; the real national dialogue is an increasingly popular tool for conflict resolution and political transformation. It can broaden debate regarding a country’s trajectory beyond the usual elite decision makers. It always in the position of giving chance to critic or questions those in power and instructs them to give solution to problem in the country.

The national dialogue provisional committee are always given powers to act independently they are not threaten or intimidate by those in powers. Our national dialogue is lacking agenda to discuss is just memory of nothing. Also it lacks political facts and mediators to handle the process. It lacks independency and mandate integrity.

South Sudan need an effective national dialogue to convenes a broad set of stakeholders for a deliberative process. To maximize the dialogue’s potential to address the real drivers of conflict; all key interest groups should be invited to participate, including women, youth, and other traditionally excluded groups such as opposition groups.

Before the process begins, an inclusive, transparent, and consultative preparatory phase sets the foundation for a genuine national dialogue. The initial decisions on the shape and structure of a national dialogue and in particular, who is invited to participate, can be as intensely political as the dialogue itself. It is important that these preparations are undertaken carefully and transparently by a preparatory committee that is inclusive of all major groups.

 Note even a dialogue that includes all major interest groups risks losing legitimacy if there are not sufficient opportunities for the public to remain informed about and feed into the dialogue. This broad participation can be achieved by linking local dialogue processes to the national dialogue, as well as through public consultations, regular outreach, and coverage in the media. Delegates can be mandated to hold consultations with the groups that they represent.

To secure the participation of a wide variety of stakeholder groups and to avoid perceptions of bias, a credible convener is of the utmost importance. This convener may take the form of a single person, a group of people, an organization, or a coalition of organizations. The convener should be respected by the majority of citizens and should not have any political aspirations or goals that would present an obvious conflict of interest.

I would also appeal to the provisional committee to reach agreement on key issues facing a country. Often, months or even years of pre-negotiation or consultation need to take place to identify and agree upon these issues, which could include any number of conflict-fueling themes: national identity, the role of religion in government, political rights, basic freedoms, institutional reform, election procedures, and the structure of government.

A national dialogue’s agenda should provide for substantive conversation around the major grievances of all key interest groups but not get mired in details, which are often better resolved by technical bodies or future governments.

National dialogues should take place outside of the existing institutions of government. In fact, national dialogues are often convened because the sitting government and existing institutions are unable to resolve the major issues at hand, either because they are seen as neither legitimate nor credible, or because they are unwilling to challenge the status quo. A national dialogue will have its own set of procedures and rules for making decisions, which should be transparent and carefully tailored to the composition of the group and the nature of the issues.

These procedures should also include mechanisms to break deadlocks if an agreement cannot be reached. Furthermore, a clear mandate lends purpose and authority to a national dialogue, whether it has been established through a peace agreement, law, presidential decree, or some other manner. The clear mandate of national dialogue allowed delegates to make steady progress toward four goals: selecting a caretaker government, approving a new constitution, establishing an electoral management body, and setting a timetable for elections.

National dialogues should feature an agreed upon plan to ensure that the resulting recommendations are implemented through a new constitution, law, policy, or other programs. Without a clear implementation plan, a national dialogue risks consuming extensive time and resources without producing any tangible results.

Therefore, I’m requesting the Provisional committee of South Sudan National Dialogue headed by Abel Alier Kuai to consider local people ownership because without a strong respected national facilitator and buy-in from a sufficient coalition of the country’s groups, a national dialogue is unlikely to produce any meaningful change.

National authorities should bear the primary responsibility for envisioning, organizing, facilitating, and financing the national dialogue. Although international assistance can fill important gaps, assistance providers must take great care to leave the fundamental responsibilities in the hands of national authorities.

International actors can offer important support on the follow-up to national dialogues, while ensuring that the main responsibility and decision making remains in the hands of national actors. This support can take the form of donor commitment to provide funding to implement the policy priorities that emerge from a national dialogue.

International actors can also fill a gap by providing technical guidance to assist national authorities in reaching agreement on contentious issues that remained unresolved at the dialogue’s conclusion, although this must be undertaken cautiously to avoid perceptions of bias. Civil society may also benefit from international support to monitor the implementation of agreements reached through the national dialogue.

Lastly, I would like to ask my colleagues across the country either in the government or in rebel camp to wake-up and join the campaigns to empower the national dialogue to make good observations and make implementation of results immediately. There is need to revise the current government leadership manifestly, and make any possible changes if compatible.

The writer can be reach 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 and the country you are writing from.

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