Ethnic identity as the political identity in South Sudan
March 24, 2014 (SSNA) — The origination of “The politics of ethnic identity” Started in December 15, 2013, in South Sudan. In reality, Salva kiir Mayardiit initiated the Politics of Ethnic identity, in South Sudan. The reason[s] why? We as the South Sudanese citizens has never been divided politically in ethnic line as such, than the recent crisis in South Sudan. In actuality, we was once divided in 1991 split of the SPLM/A, but it was very much concentrated on the political ideological differences, instead of ethnic political differences. In this recent crisis in South Sudan, Salva kiir action through the concept of “prolonging his presidency”, transformed our national politics into the “Politics of Ethnic identity”, at this particular juncture. For one, restoration of peaceful South Sudan is highly needed, and it will requires tremendous work and tremendous time from all walks of lives within the South Sudanese tribes. We are all South Sudanese; however, at this point, for us South Sudanese citizens to live in peaceful South Sudan, Salva Kiir Mayardiit “must” step down! We all want peace in South Sudan, for our co-existence as the citizens of this beautiful nation, South Sudan.
In actual fact, the only person that do not want peaceful South Sudan, is Salva kiir Mayardiit, and his few cronies who are the sole beneficiaries of the nation resources. For those who are claiming that President Salva kiir is a “Democratically elected president” and should not removed, are dead wrong! The fundamental reason is that, Kiir ordered his so called, the presidential bodyguards to committing a genocidal move toward the Nuer civilians in Juba, South Sudan. Therefore, kiir has lost the legitimacy to rule the nation of South Sudan. The politics of South Sudan became as the politics of ethnic identity, since tthe Nuer-women, men, and children, were simply killed based on their ethnic identity! The genocide that had occurred in December 15-20, 2013, is the fundamental reason for General Peter Gat Yak, and the rest of his colleagues to took the rebellion against the government for the slaughtering of the Nuer citizens in Juba, for the sake of their Ethnic identity. Is this the nation we want to live in? The answer is, no! Why did we fought against North Sudan? the simplistic answer is, Injustice!
In addition, I am not preaching for our nation politics to be seen through the lenses of “Ethnic identity”! However, we must tell the truth and prevent the unexpected like what had happened in Juba South Sudan, to the Nuer women, children, and men, in particular. It is our obligation as the citizens of South Sudan, whether to let the status quo be as it is, or to frame a new political paradigm shift for South Sudan politics. On the other hand, differing politically is a must, and it is unavoidable! This is one thing we all should be bear in mind. For that reason, let us differs politically and solves our political differences through civility instead of the “bullet”……This is the first step Salva kiir should have initiated from the very beginning—solving their differences within the political atmosphere of the SPLM Party through political tolerance.
Coup, or not a coup?
The evidences to provide the “reliability and the validity” of the so called “failed coup attempt” according to the Juba, the Republic of South Sudan, is lacking substantial and concrete evidences to prove their ill-intent alleged coup attempt claim.. Reliable and valid evidences are in need for one to actually concluded that there is such a thing as a coup in juba, South Sudan. Since the evidences are lacking, therefore, I will not put much concentration on this issue. For further clear up, “Politicians” do not make coup, only generals in the military do!! Be the judge to decide!
Political Dichotomy within the SPLM ruling party
The political crisis in South Sudan which was an internal SPLM political crisis, became as the South Sudan political and Military crisis, concurrently. The origination of the SPLM-Political-Dichotomy, originated within the circle of the SPLM Political Elites, when ideals differences occurred internally from the SPLM party. The two opposing ideas originated when Dr. Riek Machar and his Chairman Salva Kiir, differed in how the SPLM, as the ruling party of the nation, should transforms itself into viable democratic party in South Sudan. The differing of the political dichotomy within the SPLM Party became the “cooked up coup” which resulted to be the current crisis in South Sudan. The beauty of politics is to be different politically and philosophically. This is what makes the political arena a great place to be. Our being unlike politically, and philosophically should not be mistaken as being foe toward one another.
It is the nature of human beings to be different at all times—not only in politics, be it, social life activities, hubbies, and so forth. The political dichotomy within the SPLM Party should have been seen as a positive step since the individuals who are in the SPLM shares the so called SPLM party, but have different ways of moving the SPLM Party forward. The SPLM as a party cannot and will never moved itself forward without those who are in it. Let us remember that, politics is the same as much as Business! The only different between politics and business is that, in politics, Ideas are only sell through persuasion (only in Democratic countries) to the public. In the business world, persuasion is also indeed needed for one to sell his or her products; however, products in business are tangible, in which, ideas in politics are intangible. Therefore, ideas only becomes tangible whenever we interpreted those ideas and give them concrete meaning to our daily lives. This again, is where the beauty of politics plays a greater role in our lives.
The best example that the SPLM political elites (intelligentsia group) should have looked into is the concept of why we have different “Political Philosophers”? If all political philosophers are alike, there would therefore be no need to study politics. Once again, if all individuals in the same institutions or organizations are alike, there would also be no need for competitiveness for the highest position within the governmental institutions, civil societies, political parties, and so forth. Because we are all different despite our being in the same organization, institution, political party, and so on, this is where the concept of differing ideologically comes in. In conclusion, being different in how one looks at the political life should never be seen as being betrayal to your own party by the same individuals whom you shares the same political party, organization, and etc, with.. However, it should be seen as a part of being human to be different politically, and philosophically in this contemporary political life.
The author can be reached at [email protected].