By Jacob K. Lupai
October 6, 2014 (SSNA) — South Sudan is in crisis that could have been avoided. The crisis has brought untold sufferings to many innocent people, probably more than the sufferings endured during the bitter wars of liberation for independence of South Sudan. It is with horror that in independent South Sudan people should turn ferociously on each other in a senseless struggle for power and leadership.
There could have been a peaceful way out in winning the hearts and minds of the people for power and leadership. Unfortunately the use of guns and bullets as a shortcut to power and leadership was erroneously conceived with little or no conceptualization of the consequences. Poor calculations have resulted to unnecessary destruction and senseless loss of innocent lives notwithstanding the deep polarization of communities along ethnic lines.
The ongoing crisis in South Sudan is a litmus test of the political leadership whether they have the guts and the will to climb above partisan politics and ethnic cleavages in the national interest. There is no denial that this senseless armed struggle for power and leadership has taken ethnic dimension where members of one ethnic group in the wrong place have been brutally dealt with. The ethnic dimension of the ongoing armed struggle for power and leadership is well documented in the Interim Report on South Sudan Internal Conflict December 15, 2013 – March 15, 2014 by South Sudan Human Rights Commission.
The ethnic dimension of the ferocious conflict suggests that those who imagine that South Sudanese are one people are nothing but merely wishful thinkers. South Sudanese will never be one people even if the Son of Mary comes for the second time. What they can only be is as people of one destiny. Being of one destiny was the only unifying factor that brought independence to South Sudan.
Before and after independence of South Sudan
Before independence of South Sudan in 2011we were all people of one destiny because we were oppressed and marginalized, being forced to occupy second class citizenship in the old Sudan. As people sharing the same fate we were untied for strength to liberate ourselves from the yolk of Arab oppression and marginalization. We therefore fought as people of one destiny for equality, justice and freedom.
As people of one destiny the unity of people during the struggle transcended ethnic, religious and regional divide. South Sudanese were united in their strong desire for freedom and an independent homeland where they could live in dignity. Arab marginalization and the treatment as second class citizens were too painful that the people of South Sudan preferred to die in the battlefield for freedom and dignity.
According to the Sudan people’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) Manifesto 2012 the people of South Sudan are united by a common history of struggle against oppression, different forms of colonialism. This clearly suggests that South Sudanese are people of one destiny but not necessarily one people as the propagandists would like us to believe.
The Manifesto affirms in no uncertain terms that the people of South Sudan are forever inspired by the ideals of human rights and dignity, and by the insistence on respect for fundamental freedoms, social justice, equality, prosperity and democracy. Now the question to ask do those ideals still hold after independence of South Sudan.
After independence the fear and hatred of Arab colonization that had previously united South Sudanese as people of one destiny seemed to have vanished overnight. There was nothing much to unite people as before. The project was over and there was the lack of concepts for other projects to unite people as during the struggle. South Sudanese appeared to have become individuals, tribes or clans looking first after their own interests where national interest was taking the backseat.
The euphoria after the referendum results gave way to bitter disappointment in deficiencies in the ability of the government to deliver security and basic services as some of the most anticipated peace dividends and rewards for independence. There were also claims of corruption, nepotism, exclusion and domination of government and business by some ethnic groups. This was not in line with people’s expectations and aspirations before independence.
People had expected that in an independent South Sudan security of individual and property would have been provided. That was not the case. For example, land grabbing should not have been of concern in independent South Sudan. However, according to the International Republican Institute public opinion poll in all the 10 states of South Sudan, land grabbing is of concern but only in Equatoria.
The cries of poor victims of land grabbing in Equatoria by citizens from Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile are often ignored while the land grabbers are rewarded. For example, land grabbers terrorise legitimate landowners with guns yet these criminal land grabbers do not face the law nor are the guns collected from them as a security measure to preempt anarchy. One can only speculate as to what is going on and how is that going to promote national cohesion and unity.
Systems of government
There are many systems of government in the world. Each country adopts a system that is seen to address its unique needs, compatible with its vision. However, a system that works perfectly well in one country may not necessarily be suitable to another country. What may happen is that a country adapts a system to address issues of diversity and development. However, the system must be seen to be reducing social and regional inequalities and poverty.
A system of government adopted must be seen to be efficient in service delivery for a high standard of living of the people. The system adopted must also be a response to deep social fissures along ethnic, cultural and regional lines where a civil war may be looming. An adoption of a system of government to defuse tensions may save a country from collapsing.
Some of the systems of government are unitary, federal and confederal. A unitary system is the one with only a single, centralized, national tier of government. In the unitary system powers may be highly concentrated in the centre to the disadvantage of the peripheries. It is here that problems sometimes arise when the peripheries are ignored or starved of development to improve living standards.
In a unitary system of government a single ethnic group may consolidate its grip on power over the whole state through nepotism to the detriment of national unity. A unitary system of government can therefore be seen as inappropriate to a country full of ethnic, cultural and regional diversities.
In a federal system powers of government are divided between the national government, state and local governments. Under the federal system each level of government has sovereignty in some areas and shares powers in other areas. For example, both the national and state governments have the power to tax to generate revenue to deliver services but only the national government can declare war.
In a federation, the self-governing states as well as the division of powers between them and the national government, are constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision neither of the states nor the national government.
The confederal system is usually limited to a permanent union of sovereign states for common action in relation to other states. The closest entity to a confederation is the European Union. However, any existing federal state can be transformed into a looser confederation instead of breaking up into totally different independent nations.
Diversities in South Sudan
In the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan 2011, South Sudan is considered a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-lingual, multi-religious and multi-racial entity where such diversities peacefully co-exist. However, the statement in the last part where it is asserted that “such diversities peacefully co-exist” is arguable. There are always inter and intra ethnic clashes and violence. There are also regional diversities in physical features that can provide comparative advantage in development.
In South Sudan there are mainly two modes of livelihoods. Some communities are pastoralists while others are sedentary farmers. Clashes between pastoralists and farmers are not uncommon with poor delivery of security, characteristic of a centralized system that may be hopelessly too remote to be effective.
Sometimes, arrogance and insensitivity of pastoralists to the feelings of farmers make things worse. It is common for pastoralists to drive deliberately their animals into cultivated fields for the animals to feast on food crops. This is adverse to farmers’ food security. When the farmers complain the pastoralists do not listen and hardly control their animals for a peaceful co-existence with farmers.
It is very clear that the diversities in South Sudan call for a system of government that is robust, closer and adequately responsive to peoples felt needs at the grassroots. A highly centralized system that is hopelessly remote and cannot deliver services as anticipated is not for South Sudan. South Sudan is apparently in need of a system of government that accelerates development for a high standard of living of its people.
Federalism for salvation of South Sudan
The present system of government in South Sudan is quasi federalism. It is a quasi federal system because it is midway between a centralized and a federal system with many attributes of federalism, of course, lacking. There are 10 autonomous states but are limited in powers. For example, the states have limited powers of having their own judiciary, police, prisons, wildlife and fire brigade. The states also may have limited power to tax to raise the needed revenue for development.
For the states to perform and deliver the badly needed services a federal system of government is the most appropriate because the states will then have more powers. Some people have argued that the existing 10 states show that South Sudan is already a federation. This, however, is false. This may be partly due to ignorance of what a federal system entails or it could be the case of those tunnel vision reactionary centralists who exploit and benefit the most from a centralized system of government.
A federal system of government is the most recommended because it will turn South Sudan into a strong vibrant united country where diversities are a source of strength with more powers to the states to address the current deficiencies in service delivery for development.
Conclusion
As mentioned above there are three types of system of government under consideration and they are unitary, federal and confederal. For South Sudan it is envisaged that a federal system is the most appropriate and a good compromise. Although at first it was shunned, the federal system is now widely recognized in the nation and regionally. What remains are the details. In principle federalism is already accepted.
The Sudan Tribune website on September 27, 2014 showed the Government of the Republic of South Sudan agreeing to a federal system of government.
The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Protocol on Agreed Principles on Transitional Arrangements Towards Resolution of the Crisis in South Sudan, 28 August 2014, in part, stipulates that the “Transitional Government of National of Unity (TGONU) to initiate and oversee a permanent constitution-making process, during the Transitional Period, based on the principles of federalism and taking into account unity in diversity, and to devolve more power to the states”.
One wonders what will the opponents of federalism make of the government’s acceptance of a federal system and the acceptance of principles of federalism by IGAD. It is hoped the opponents of federalism are not out of touch with the reality unfolding.
In conclusion, a federal system is the only way for the salvation of South Sudan for national unity in diversity and sustainable development out of the mess and turmoil that has been unnecessarily created.
Jacob K. Lupai is the author of a new book, South Sudan, Issues in Perspective, which will shortly be launched in Juba, South Sudan.