The Model South Sudan
By Atem Abuoi, Juba, South Sudan
Friday, September 18, 2020 (PW) — “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it” 1 Corinthians 10:13 States are not new subjects in social evolution of human kind. It became more complex now than ever before in response to changing realties of social and political matters ascribed to.
Historically, states are products of a process of two folds; military and economics competitions. In pursuit of self-pride or protection, building-up military might and seeking conquer becomes instruments of survival that subsequently produce administrative capabilities useful to generate resources to sustain territorial expansion or provision of geographical control. Purportedly, the surplus of production that comes along populace expansion, induce some sort of administration to ensure continuity of both military superiority and economic wellbeing.
This entire process is what defines states; their nature, duties and functions.Ironically, contemporary politics conceptualized states in relation to existence of social contract that governs relations between rulers and their subjects; hence describe rights and duties for both. Unlike other forms of governance – such as autocracy and neopatrimonial – democratic form of governance proved durability and compatibility with human instincts and desires for freedom.
Nevertheless, democratic systems – especially in the west – have started recently to show some patterns of manipulation and control exerted by influential groups such as trade unions and tycoons to the extent of dictating certain policies against the interests of the general public. Notwithstanding this reality, modern state as refers to by Francis Fukuyama is a composition of three institutions; the state which monopolized coercive use of power, rule of law that is supreme and applicable to all, and democratic accountability which hints to people right to account their rulers’ practices through exercise of rights to vote.
In another way it refers to procedural democracy where rulers are answerable to people demands for better lives. Ensued Hitler defeat and subsequent split of Germany into two states, capitalism led by the United States had promptly embarked on a strategy to combat socialism in Western Europe through creation of a liberal state in the western half of Germany. To set the ground suitable for this goal, mobilizing allies especially in Europe became imperative as their interests were perceived to be compatible with the United States objectives of preventing socialist ideas from reaching its shores.
The famous Marshal plan hitherto became an economic side of the plan, designed to induce economic recovery through generous financial assistance provided by the United States to the economy. On the political side, the focus on middle class and introduction of new liberal values into the newly reconstructed political system in western Germany, constituted a political aversion from socialism ideal of state’ control and cooperative economy.
Practically, despite numerous setbacks and obstacles within German society, ultimately a democratic system was established thought bearing defaults of previous system; such as trade unions with hands-free powers to the extent of suppressing co-workers resentment to low wages and harsh working condition. It’s worth mentioning, the level of freedom and economic recovery that brought to German, could be labeled as one of later causes to the fall of Berlin’ wall. In Africa, states were formed not as a process of military and economic competitions as described by theory of state formation alluded to.
Rather, it is colonial powers whom adventured to Africa, were the architects of present states based on vested interests on resource accumulation and geopolitical dominance. The nature of created states therefore became exploitative, extractive and oppressive; a condition that stroked revolt across the continent in a form of mass mobilization against the colonials which concluded with political independence. After formal independence, and far beyond the most skeptical thoughts on the prospect of African states, a new system of domestic colonialism emerged all over the continent.
African élites therefore, had perpetuated the suppressive systems inherited from colonial masters and continued the exploitation of the very people they fought to emancipate. Furthermore, in a way of ensuring sufficient resources are mobilized for this purpose, they monopolized state resources to enrich themselves and subsequently built wider network of kleptocratic systems across the continent. Henceforth it’s not a surprise to see then an expanded wave of liberations’ struggle across the continent with the objective of regaining the African states from the élites, back to the people at the grassroots.
Theoretically, most revolutions in Africa had sought emancipation from neocolonialism through popular mobilization and application of armed struggle as a main tool for liberation. In practice, most of them had exerted much of their power and influence fighting within themselves. Lack of clear and well articulated vision for future and weak leadership at some points, is seen by many as main causes for this phlegmatic position. The most successful movements hitherto end up either autocratic or evolved into neo-patrimonial system whenever states’ power fall under their disposal.
This fact suggests some sort of dysfunctions between components of these movements as they move into statehood. Subsequently there are many reasons to account which can be considered tributaries to this situation such as; the coercive measures applied by incumbent regimes and its inflicted damage on revolution movements which led many to became either regional or sectarians, beside the ideological gaps as most of the movement gave no attention to the crucial role of ideology on the struggle and discern future of their countries.
South Sudan History of StruggleSouth Sudanese quest for independence commenced right after Turkish invasion, persisted during the Mahadist revolution and rejuvenated 1983 in a form of a quasi- ideological revolt with an objective of freeing the old Sudan from its Islam-Arabic centrism and replace it with a New Sudan based on the Country’ historical and contemporary social realities. Failure of Sudanese to rise up to these ideals, led to 2011 independence of South Sudan. Thought the last revolt culminated into independent, it fall like its predecessor (Anyanya 1) into a trap of an ideological gap which is usually filled by individual, ethnic and sectarian tendencies.
Unfortunately, among the political élites Ideological matters seems out of reach at an early stage in the political history of the country, and eventually ethnic tendencies replace and impede any attempt to build a cohesive national identity and unity of purpose for the whole country. The kleptocratic system built since 2005, had therefore, inflicted more suffering to the already fragmented and injured society; bred on legacy of the war of liberation where dividends are solely shared between strong individuals and groups.
Despite this gloomy face, the fact remains, that the late founding father Dr. John Garang de Mabior had consistently illuminate throughout Sudan civil war on the five models of understanding possible solutions to the Sudanese problem. The features of these models were not in any one list of agenda or maybe no one dared to engage in such an intellectual and thoughtful battle. Practically, defaults of the revolutionary movement had transcended itself into current institutions of governance that bestowed with the responsibility of delivering services and transforming people lives.
Corruption, poor performance and nepotism became the rule of the game and as a result, people at the periphery continue to live under similar condition to the period before Turkish intervention. Furthermore, the continuity of malpractices associated with South Sudan transformation into statehood, had create a sense of indifference and phlegmatic reactions to morality, which in turn exacerbated live conditions for ordinary people and obscured any discern into future. In a way of looking critically into current situation of the country, some are advocating for retrieving the New Sudan ideology; which underpin rejection of Sudanese state that built on Arab-Islamic parameter in total disregard to existing diversity.
Unlike this situation, south Sudan hasn’t developed such kind of monopoly where certain ethnic groups are alienated from the state. In fact, the kleptocratic system in place have the image of an inclusive political entity with slight variety not based on dominance of particular segment of society but rather a reflection of individual strength and influence. Tracing roots of ideological vacuum in south Sudan goes back as far as the Anyanya war of liberation. Then, despite the sixteenth sentiment of socialism, the war was not based on any ideological theory or guidelines.
The quest for independence hence aborted and substituted with minimum power sharing in the southern region with total disregard to the existence of a separate army. Subsequently, Khartoum dishonored its commitment and the whole country relapsed into violent conflict for another twenty one years. Failure or lack of interest among politicians to stick to certain principles, remains a daunting phenomenon to understand, however, it implications continue to influence local and foreign choices for the country.
The model South Sudan, the great people of South Sudan had constantly preserve values of integrity, loyalty and honestly throughout the path to freedom. The continuation of this pattern of behavior is as much crucial as the future of the country is at this junction. Therefore, expected transformation requires cohesion and commitment from ordinary citizen as well as political actors in the country. South Sudan model therefore is to be building on these values, in addition to full integration into global wave of democratic change.
For this purpose, a democratic united and federal country is most appropriate to contemporary situation of the country, and as part of the great lakes region and a full member of East African community, using Kiswahili as mean of communication will serve two purposes; facilitate positive interaction with neighbors and overcoming domestic’s challenge of a national language useable across communities.At the social level, the focus on the middle class is paramount through a clear strategy of upgrading human resource of the country by investing more on education to ensure capable cadres are ready to lead the transition into modernity.
Its implication will definitely be positive in the political arena, as public institutions will be managed by qualified nationals who see success and opportunities are there for able individuals not loyal people. It’s imperative to apprehend the fact that current ethnic tendencies that pulls the country a part, are ought to be understood in line with the ideological vacuum left out of ignorance or desire for self enrichment. The sentiments that people of south Sudan possess incompatible interests – hence justify violent conflicts – is therefore vague and irrational.
Bearing in minds the destructive nature of current kleptocracy, its instrument to relinquish the clientalistic attitudes in assuming public offices through a discreet procedural of job selection that take into account merits possesses by aspirant individuals in total disregard to their ethic, political affiliation and gender. At the foreign front, south Sudan model stands firm to retain hope to similar situation of transition from protracted civil war of independence to viable state.
The choice of the title “MODEL” is therefore an indication to potential impact it have on neighboring states, considering similarities between all African states. The positive relations with like states are paramount to ensure continuing share of experience and learning from own and others’ mistakes. Again, the South Sudan we deserve is still ahead and the potential this country possess is sufficient to deliver desired results and sustain the destiny toward modernity. Done 2016.
The author is a concerned South Sudanese citizen who is reachable via his email address: agudyar83@gmail.com
About Post Author
