By Dr. Laura Nunu, Saturday 23, October 2021
Sustainable Peace and Future Governance of South Sudan
Conference of the Sudan Peace Programme, University of Manchester, UK
ABSTRACT
This paper attempts to explain the failure of the SPLM South Sudan project and the way forward. It does so by introducing the concept of unity in diversity, which is actually a law. Using the law of Unity In Diversity, it argues that South Sudan fails as a result of Identity Crisis. SPLM, instead of implementing the dreams of South Sudanese as they promised it in their vision, embarked on a tribal hegemony project that took the country back to war. It explains in details how the identity crisis come to be and gives recommendations and concludes how the law of Unity In Diversity can contribute in reversing this crisis to create a unified national identity in a sustainable South Sudan.
INTRODUCTION
The concept of Unity In Diversity developed due to the level of fatigue and helplessness we are all living in our world today. It was a personal journey with the passion to seek the ‘TRUTH” and find out if there is REAL TRUTH out there or Truth is indeed objective as well as subjective depending on the context.
Before Covid-19 hits us, we all knew that we were desperate for a change because the weight of discomfort, tiresome or stress we were carrying along in our daily lives was getting out of control. What Covid-19 did was exposing all the loopholes our systems created as a result of these realities.
Globally, the reality is self-speaking. At micro-individual(s) level, we are far more apart than before and our overall well being is in a declining mode. Politically, we are more polarized and competitive and socially, we are very discriminative. In the western world context like the UK, this evidence can be seen in the rising cases of mental health as well as deterioration of physical health. And in the Southern part of the world like South Sudan, the situation is extremely worse. People are in constant fear of their very existence and loosing lives at an alarming rate every day at every level. Whether that is due to war, insecurity, famine, diseases and economic crisis, the list is just endless. On the top of that, they also have to face Covid-19 like any other people in the world.
Being from both worlds, these are the experiences I deal with every day, whether at personal level, family/friends level, or/and as a member of our global society. Finding myself in a frustrated desperate and helpless position, I started to ask myself: Who are we really, where do we come from and why are we here?
In an attempt to answer these questions, I came to realize that we are actually in what I came to call ‘Spectrum of Global Identity Crisis’. What Covid-19 did was exposing this reality to us. And in attempt to understand this ‘Spectrum of Global Identity Crisis’, the concept of “Unity In Diversity” was born. As I dig deeper in understanding what actually “ Unity In Diversity” could mean and how does it explain this “Spectrum of Global Identity Crisis”, I came to realize that actually, “Unity In Diversity” is not only a conceptual ideology but also a law. It could be one of the forgotten laws of nature that is at the core of our existence. This is becauseit attempts to unwrap the question: ‘how do we come to exist as diverse as we are, while still connected?’ Of course, for centuries of years, many answers have been given to this question from all aspects of disciplines, being it scientific or religious/spiritual perspective. And thousands, if not millions, of books have been written about it. However, what the law of Unity In Diversity is offering is a unique perspective with a holistic approach to it. This is because most of the time, we are either ‘Diverse’ or ‘United’ depending on the context. But can we actually be ‘Diverse and United at the same time’? If so, how? This is what the law of Unity In Diversity explains.
The law of Unity In Diversity
The Law of Unity In Diversity simply says: there is unity in diversity and every single diverse entity is a unique essence of the whole. As simple as it is, it speaks of the entire diversity in the whole universe. In so doing, it is not only addressing the question of ‘who we are’, but also ‘where do we come from and why are we here’, which is definitely beyond the scope of this article. As such, I will narrow it down to our human context only in the question of ‘who we are?’
As humans, we are a global diversity of unity in our humanity. As different as we are in all aspects of differences (age, gender, race & ethnicity, ideology, ability & capacity etc.) we all belong to the animal kingdom of human beings, right? And it is in this collective consciousness of realizing, acknowledging as well as treating ourselves as such; we can truly call and refer to ourselves as members of the human family. For it is in this simple Truth that our Sense and Essence of Humanity exists. And it is in this Sense and Essence of our Humanity that we are capable of sharing our happiness, pain and compassion with each other. In this compassion, we can sense and feel the pains of our fellow human beings, understand their concerns and extend a helping hand because we deeply understand and know intuitively, as well as intellectually, that they are the exact reflection of us! As such, their pains are our pains and their concerns are equally our concerns too. Indeed, we are one human family in its diverse variables and layers of diversity. In Essence, we are really one.
If we are to quantify this, we can also say that 99% of all the things, which make us human, are the same things that are in each and every one of us. It is only in the 1% of the things that differentiate us as individuals, as well as groups, that make us feel different. And this is what COVID-19 has proved to us in this pandemic. COVID-19 does not discriminate except for the vulnerable ones in our society, which according to our science will always have lesser chance of survival than the rest of us (Laura Nunu, 2019).
So, what does all this mean?
This means, as human, there is a Basic Unified Truth about us. And this Basic Unified Truth is our collective consciousness in realizing as well as acknowledging our Human Values, which are at the basis of our Natural Rights and Morality. But since we fail to understand who we really are, this Basic Unified Truth got messed up and we found ourselves in now what I called ‘the Spectrum of Global Identity Crisis’. Who we are become our race/ethnicity, age, gender, educational background, financial status, where we live and so on and so forth. The Essence of who we really are as humans is totally lost or is not considered important at all. As a result, we found ourselves in this identity crisis and wonder why. If we make the law of Unity In Diversity the basic concept by which we relate to each other and the law by which we operate with one another, we shall experience a mental shift in our understanding as well as a paradigm shift in all our functions. Not only that but also we shall be able to unlock most of the hidden mysteries of nature and our existence. After all, it is the law by which nature operates. But then the question is: how did we end up here, what happened?
Duality and ‘survival of the fittest’
For the sake of simplicity, let us borrow the notion of “Duality”. Let us simply say that “Duality” is the realization of ourselves as different from “others”, which makes us create opposites of the same. In the concept view of the law of Unity In Diversity, duality is the core process in the creation of diversity. One can argue that it is the main force of energy that create and maintain the entire universe. This energy seems to have a common centre from which it expands and contracts simultaneously. In so doing, variables and variables of diversity are created. So, diversity is actually diversity within diversity. As such, in the law of Unity In Diversity, we always talk of spectrum of diversity to reflect this fact. In these mutually repulsive forces, it looks like kept in perfect order, place and timing as if for the continuation of existence! However, instead of embracing these forces as they are and understanding that these are the forces of creations, we create a hierarchal process out of it that function under the survival of the fittest.
In the survival of the fittest concept, the higher you are on the evolution ladder, the better it is for your survival. Human, considering they to be the highest species in the evolution ladder, assumes custodian and ownership above other species. And as they started to organize themselves into different forms of functional structures in their process of civilization, they also applied this in their relationships with each other at every level. The higher you are in any ladder of function, the better it is for your survival. As a result, variables of differences that naturally exist and some which are created as a result of duality are used as distinctions for placing individual(s) as well as group(s) in those civilization ladders for the survival of others over others. As a result, relationships among humans are mainly driven by a sense of pride and prejudice, power and might, rich and wealth, education and advancement in knowledge (science and technology) and so on and so forth. These become the most important identity markers by which we identify ourselves because they indicate our survival position in the civilization ladder. The real Essence of Humanity is either lost, not considered important or taken advantage of. This is the harsh reality of our world today! After thousands, if not millions of years of existence, we are still functioning under the concept reality of survival of the fittest and wondering why we are polarized, competitive, discriminative and generally unwell.
How is this relevant in this conference?
The law of Unity In Diversity is very relevant in understanding and analyzing any human situation without being necessarily judgmental about it. This is because at the core of any human problem, there is ONE fundamental problem that manifests itself differently in the diverse entity whether that entity is an individual(s) or group(s). But to reach to this ONE fundamental problem, we have to peel-off all the layers of the things that are hiding it. And the law of Unity In Diversity will help us peel-off all those layers. In the case of South Sudan, for example, the problem started as ‘crisis in identity’ and ends up as ‘crisis in identity’. It just made a complete circle to end up in much more complex and worse manners. Why, because the main issues claimed by SPLA/M to be at the root causes of the liberation struggle were not addressed or not meant to be addressed but to be taken advantage of to lure support from the masses. To understand this, let us use the concept of the law of Unity In Diversity to unwrap it.
Crisis of identity, the fundamental problem at the core of the South Sudan war
Globally, the Crisis of identity is an uncomfortable subject we prefer not to discuss; as a result, most of the time discussions are held around the subject of diversity. And when diversity is being discussed especially in the western world context, focuses are based mainly on the subjects of assimilations of minority groups into majority groups, equal inclusion and participation of minority groups in the majority groups’ privileges but rarely about how those issues came to exist in the first place. And South Sudan is not an exception in this. But what makes South Sudan special is the fact that although it is still new in the discussions tables, it has a long and raw history of crisis of identity that can benefit understandings around those subjects.
So, if we take a close look at the five decades of war, suffering and instability that took more than 3.5 million lives, we shall find out that South Sudanese are struggling in finding a unified definition of ‘who they really are’. The former oppressive governments of Sudan seemed to define Sudanese from the inherited features of Arabs or/and practices of the Arab culture. Anyone who didn’t look like an Arab, pray like an Arab or identified him or herself as such could not be considered Sudanese and would not be treated as one. Automatically, South Sudanese found themselves outsider in their own country.
Not only that but also, given the dark history of interventions by different players whereby Arabs were used as slaves’ traders for the native Africans, being citizens with African features and cultural background didn’t qualify South Sudanese as equal citizens as their counter Arabs-like citizens. They were seen, more or less, slaves than citizens with full equal rights and participation. As a result, they were marginalized and discriminated against. However, South Sudanese struggled for 50 plus years to vote for a country they can finally call their own under SPLA/M liberation struggle that ended up in a Comprehensive Peace Agreement that gave them the right for self-determination.
South Sudan seceded from Sudan in January 9, 2011. But, after only two years of independence, it was back in war with itself with the most brutal genocide and human rights atrocity the world had seen, as explain by Pinaud, Clémence in her book ‘War and Genocide in South Sudan, 2021’.
The question that is in everyone lips is: they are as dark as night, and have just separated from what they called ‘Muslim-Arab domination and discrimination’ then why are they fighting?
To answer this question, we must understand who the South Sudanese are. We must dig deep into not only the historical struggles of the South Sudanese people, but also deep into their ethnic power struggles of co-existence as different ethnic groups or nations. Since this is beyond the scope of this article, I will focus briefly on few highlights.
So, Who are the South Sudanese people?
Briefly, from a historical perspective, occurrence of events from the pre-colonial era starting from the Ottoman Empire (1821-1882), the Mahadiya Revolution (1882-1892), the colonial rule (1889-1956) and the repressive postcolonial government of Sudan to the present-day South Sudan (2011-2021) impacted and shaped the South Sudanese identity heavily.
The Ottoman Empire unified the territories that would become Sudan to maximise raiding slaves and extracting resources. The Mahadiya continued with the slave raids as its predecessor did and added two fundamental aspects: forceful Islamisation of local communities and used land as a reward to fighters. After Mahadiya was the period of colonialism whose legacy is even more pronounced today than the other interventions in South Sudan. Firstly, by adopting a distinct governance strategy in Sudan and South Sudan, the British colonial rule created the South-North identities that negatively shaped relations between the two regions. Secondly, by using, the indirect rule in South Sudan, this administration destabilised the social fabric in many areas in South Sudan by introducing chiefs that would serve the colonial interests rather than the interests of their own people, as had been the case before this intervention. Building on the foundation laid by colonialism, successive postcolonial governments changed government structures to divide and rule communities or win civil wars.
As a result of those events, South Sudanese were automatically put in a less privilege positions that made them lesser than their northern fellow citizens. As a result, they were discriminated against, dominated and marginalized.
Now, the new oppressors, in the faces of Salva Kiir and his Jieng Council of Elders, also want South Sudanese to falsely believe that, as diverse ethnic groups as they are, they must all follow the traditional ruling system of the Jieng people and their Council of Elders and surrender their land to them. Why, because they are the majority tribe who fought and won the war.[1] These are some of the narratives and the realities that unfolded as a result of the South Sudanese war, which erupted in December 2013. However, some people still want to argue that the war burst-forth as a result of political power struggle in the SPLM party between the President, Salva Kiir and his Vice President, Dr. Riek Machar, leaving the root causes of the problems untouched (De Vries, L. and Justin, P.H., 2014)
And the genocide that resulted from targeting the Nuer ethnic group at the onset of the conflict was said to be due to groups loyal to he President and his vice. If we are to follow this narrative with logical questioning: how could a power struggle between two political leaders of ONE ruling party (SPLM) end up in killing of innocent civilians along ethnic lines? Why had SPLM split up into pieces if the main problem was Just President, Salva Kiir and his Vice President, Dr. Riek Machar? What had this power struggle to do with innocent men, women and children from Nuer massacred on 15th, 16th and 17th December 2013? And what of the aftermath massacre of Dinka men, women and children in Upper Nile and Bahr el Ghazal? What about those men, women and children killed in Wau in 2012? What about the men, women and children who are still being killed and chased away from their ancestral land of Greater Equatoria? What about all the raping of both male and female some of who were as young as five years of age? Were all these also loyalties of these two men?
What about the land grabbing issues that is evident all over the country? What about all the looting and burning of villages that are common events of this war? What about the practices of tribalism, looting of state resources with impunity and dominance of most government institutions by mainly two tribes? What about the recruitment of tribal militias? Are all these events isolated or related? And above all, what is the power struggle all about?
The Bitter Truth about South Sudan’s war: Power, People and Land!
South Sudan may be new in its existence as a nation but it is very old in the practices of the survival of the fittest concept. Way before the interventions by the foreign players mentioned above occurred, South Sudanese were, and still are living as clusters of ethnic group of tribes in the present geographical area called South Sudan. These ethnic groups were entities of nations by themselves with histories of struggles. And they used to fight over power, land and resources. The unwritten notion, which seems to be inline with the survival of the fittest concept is that whoever is in power controls the land and its resources; and whoever controls the land and its resources controls the people. And whoever controls the people and their land is powerful! So these vicious circles continue with shifting of power, killing and control of people, land and their resources from one group to the other (Laura Nunu). This seems to be the case of this power struggle scenario between President, Salva Kiir (Dinka) and his Vice President, Dr. Riek Machar (Nuer) which is evident in their used of tribal militias, killing of civilians along ethnic lines, and signing of positions deal agreement among themselves. Not only that but also, president Kirr, right after the war erupted, institutionalized his tribal council, the Jieng Council of Elders (JCE) in the national government decisions making process. He also changed government structure aiming at changing the power balance by placing his tribesmen in prominent positions. He went further overhauling the landscape of the country by creating states and counties that benefit his tribe only. In so doing, Kirr effectively legitimised domination and assimilation of other tribes by his tribesmen.
And being powerful in this case can also mean, one is above the law. As a result, acting with impunity is seen normal by them because it expresses ‘being powerful’. And this ‘being powerful’ gains support from their tribesmen who are ready to mobilize clans and ethnic communities to take part in any violent confrontations to defend their leaders as was done in the recruitment of Dut-ku-bang and Mathiang Anyoor.
Furthermore, if we take a glimpse into what happened in the 23 years of SPLA/M struggle, we’ll find out most of those years were wasted in fighting each other than the perceived common enemy. This is because the liberation struggle was founded and fought a long tribal lines and even after gaining national recognition still continued a long tribal lines with Dr. John Gareng leading the Dinka dominated group, Dr. Riek Machar leading the Nuer dominated group and Dr. Lam Akol leading the Chollo dominated group. So, when Dr. John signed CPA with the Khartoum government, in 2005, his group perceived it as an international legitimation that gave Dinka the right to govern the country, which led to their domination and discrimination of others claiming to be the majority liberators who fought and won the war. And since Dr. Riek and his group had the same ambitions, he was seen as a threat right from the start of the movement.
In a nutshell, there is nothing political about this power struggle because there is no single political ideology the two gentlemen were fighting over. The SPLM vision used to gain support from the masses was abandoned completely. Except for the self-determination that resulted in the session of South Sudan, nothing from that vision was achieved. South Sudanese are in a worst situation than when they were under the oppressive regime of the Sudanese governments. In conclusion, South Sudan has failed as a nation, period.
South Sudan has failed as a nation, what is the way forward?
Before talking of the way forward, there are things we need to understand in regards to building a unified identity while maintaining individual(s) or group(s) identities. So, let’s unpacked it!
Spectrum of tribal diversity and unified global identity
As mentioned before, diversity is a spectrum, so when we speak of diversity, we are speaking of diversity within diversity itself. From the concept perspective of the law of Unity In Diversity, South Sudanese can be defined as spectrum of tribal diversity that fail to acknowledge and embrace their unified identity as South Sudanese. Although from the start of the civil war, the authority in Juba increasingly used the word ‘one nation one people’, this so-called patriotic notion of ‘one nation, one people’ doesn’t exist. South Sudanese identify themselves as ethnic group of tribes more than people of a particular nation. In other words, they identify themselves as tribes that occupy a geographical area now called South Sudan than South Sudanese of diverse tribes coming together to create a nation called South Sudan. By no means, this is just an exchange of words but the mental shift that is required for the formation of a unified identity. They fail to make this mental shift because SPLM cheated them of their votes. SPLM did not intend to create a unified nation but was aspiring for a tribal hegemony. The motto of ‘one nation, one people’ was just used to lure collective support. As a result, their dream of having a country they can finally call their home in which they can live as citizens with equal rights in their own ancestral land where by towns are taken to their villages turned into nightmares of tribal hegemony, tribal discrimination and domination, land grapping, rapping, killing, chasing people away from their ancestral land to become refugees in neighboring countries and beggars on the streets, occupation of their land by armed cattle herders, non-functional institutions, corruption, economic crisis, health crisis, insecurity and so on and so forth. This is the truth reality of the SPLM South Sudan project. So, there is no a collective identity called South Sudanese.
What South Sudanese were aspiring for was to be recognized as a global citizen of a particular viable nation, South Sudan, in its vast definition but not only its location. South Sudan being the newest nation could have benefited from its own experiences and the experiences of others and chose to implement the best and the latest in the world and build its capacity around it. But since this is not the vision SPLM elites shared, there is no way they can even think like that.
Spectrum of identity
As mentioned before, identity is a very sensitive topic and also a very complex one. As human beings, we are unified individual(s) and group(s) of diverse identities. Since diversity is a spectrum, there is no a single identity marker that can identify us except in its diverse-unified form. And some of these identity markers are natural or/and static, others are created as we develop. This means, our identity is in a constant motion changing depending on the roles and functions we take in our developmental timelines or/and events we encounter in our lives.
And these changes don’t only occur at individual(s) level, but also at group(s) level.
In the case of South Sudanese ethnic groups, SPLM South Sudan project has divided South Sudanese more than unifying them, both at the highest political level as well as the lowest grassroots individuals level. At political level, privileges are given only to those who are in support of the Kirr tribal regime, irrespective of their tribes. And this support might not necessarily mean that all individuals in Kirr government support his tribal ideology or endorsed it. South Sudanese in general know that some individuals hold symbolic positions of ‘tribal representation’ under the false definitions of politicians. But being in Kirr government at a relatively prominent position but being mute while your tribes are deliberately targeted and killed create a division among the tribes between those who understand the positions of their tribe-persons and those who just don’t get it. Among others, a prominent example is vice president Wani Igga; he didn’t utter a word when, several times, president Kirr targeted his Bari people of lobonok. He might assume a position of being SPLM politician, but, by now, he should have clearly known that SPLM has turned tribal. So, some people are defensive of his position, while others just hate him for it.
Kirr also use ‘ divide and rule’ policy as a strategy of keeping South Sudanese under his control. He does this very well with his opponents. He will lure and reward them with positions in his government. But after using them to his satisfaction, he will damp them causing tensions between supporters. Among others, a prominent example is ex-vice president Taban Gai who turned against his boss Dr. Riek and accepted vice president position. But when Kirr realized that he couldn’t get rid of Dr. Riek completely, Taban Gai was damped with his supporters and Dr. Riek resumed his position as a vice president.
At the local level, using the same policy of ‘divide and rule’, Kirr and his Jieng Council of Elders, a tribal group, divided the country into 38 states to benefit mainly his tribe. This caused tensions among communities whose land were annexed to other communities even in the region of Equatoria, whose communities were coexisting peacefully. In so doing, Kirr managed to divide communities against each other. And since this division was aimed to benefit his tribe, Kirr was killing two birds with one stone: first, by implementing his agenda of tribal domination, he gave more land to his communities and second, by causing division among others, he is able to manage them easily as they had turned against each other.
South Sudanese are also divided as individuals, clans, and tribes depending on whom they support and why they support them or not. Some supports are purely tribal or because the person(s) is their family/friends or clan member, others are for privileges purposes. As a result, the division has cut through families, clans, communities, tribes, regions and the whole country is into pieces against each other depending on who is supporting who and on what issue. But still there are also those who tend to focus mainly on the content of the issues regardless of who caused it and why; while some just mind their own business pretending to be ignorant. In conclusion, although this war started as Dinka-Nuer war, tribal identity is very diverse and there are various ways of implementing tribalism that can cause divisions at various levels irrespective of the tribes.
Unified Identity
Although South Sudan is a spectrum of tribal diversity, there are some tribes who managed to create a unified identity. Whether as a result of facing common enemies/catastrophes or not, some tribes learnt to co-exist as they come to see values in each other. And colonialism, irrespective of its negative impacts, helped them forged through the process of unified identity by introducing foreign unified identity markers like linguistic, religion, education and political system that would become useful in the process of seeking unified global identity.
To put this in perspective, Fertit in western Bahar el Gazal and Equatorians are the two groups who had taken this journey. In the region of Equatoria for example, irrespective of being a region with more half (34 of 64?) of the ethnic group of tribes in South Sudan, Equatorians have learnt to co-exist peacefully. They also benefitted from linguistic, religion, education and political system that were imported by the colonial systems. As a result, they developed their own shared common language (Arabic Juba), common values, which are mostly Christian values like the rest of the world, and they are very proud to identify themselves as the People of Equatoria. This development is important as we start to think of the way forward because it lays the foundation for the approaches that will benefit South Sudanese at this critical junction.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Federalism, the way forward for South Sudan
Spectrum of federal system
The idea of Federalism developed from the concept of Unity In Diversity. As I was searching for references, I came across two books: Dialogues on diversity and unity in federal countries (volume 7, 2008), edited by Rupak Chattopadhay and Abigail Ostien Karos and Unity In Diversity Europe and the European Union: Enlargement and Constitutional Treaty (edited by Micheal Herslund & Ramona Samaon, 2005). Dialogues on diversity and unity in federal countries discussed about how old and new federal countries formed federalism and what challenges they are facing especially with the new minority groups of migrants. But Unity In Diversity Europe and the European Union: Enlargement and Constitutional Treaty is about the formation of European Union from spectrum of diverse European countries. One group, the Western Europe, is very advanced in its democracy compared to Eastern Europe some of which had just emerged from the iron-fist of communism. The two major spectrums of the European diverse countries were seeking for common values of unifications. And both of these two political arrangements used Unity In Diversity as the bases of their arrangement without necessarily explaining it as we did here.
As you might have realized, Federalism is diverse in its nature because it is dealing with the question: ‘what arrangement of a government system can fit a diverse society’ and this ‘diverse society’ can be of majority & minority groups, territorial, linguistic, cultural/ethnic, economic, political and so on and so forth. The list is endless because it’s not only one aspect of diversity but also a mixture of diversity within diversity. This complexity is acknowledged but the explanations didn’t really get into the bottom of it as we did here. This is also the case with the Crisis of identity talked about, none of the discussions addressed it as we did above in the law of Unity In Diversity, which I believe is at the core of our identity crisis. So, what is a federal System?
Federal system, what is?
From the concept perspective of the law of Unity In Diversity federal system is a government system that is basically aiming at acknowledging and accommodating diverse societies. It can do so by bringing diverse groups together under one unified identity as in the example of the European Union mentioned above or create interventions/arrangements that target few/several groups’ inclusions in the existing body as in the examples of the old and new federal countries. But since diversity in itself is diverse, the complexity around these arrangements are also diverse, but mostly fail within these two distinctive arrangements: 1) Self-government, autonomy and accommodation 2) Shared rule, Integration and Participation. Although these are the two distinctive features, they overlapped. But what really drive which federal arrangement are the main distinctive issues that require a federal system, which take central positions around which arrangements are made. As a result, different countries may have similar arrangements but they differ in their core issues (Cesar Colino/Luis Moreno, 2008).
In the case of South Sudan, there are two distinctive voices: Self-government, autonomy or separation where by there is separation and exclusivity of powers and own-sources of revenue for the constituent units echo by Dr. Hakim Dario the chairman of People Democratic Movement (PDM). And Shared rule, integration and participation at the federal (central) institutions in which there is direct representations from the constituent units at the federal level, which is the position of National Salvation Front (NAS) under the leadership of General Thomas Cirillo Swaka. But how these arrangements are done is what South Sudanese should be hearing from them and others and get engaged at every level as individuals as well as groups of different political movements/parties, civil societies, faith groups and others. And to implement those arrangements, peace and stability is required. But for sustainable peace to prevail in South Sudan so that the process of nation building can start, South Sudanese must adapt the law of Unity In Diversity as the law by which they relate and function with each other, other than using survival of the fittest, which is at the core of the identity crisis they found themselves in. To do this, two approaches are required: Top-Down and Bottom-Up approaches must be engaged simultaneously in order for sustainable peace and stability to be realized in South Sudan.
Top-down approach
International communities should stop habits of prejudice that widens trust gap
International communities play significant roles in the timelines of South Sudanese wars starting from the North-South war to the present SPLM created war of Dinka-Nuer, which is now called SPLM-IG-SPLM-IO war. Their impact was huge in the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and laying foundation for nation building process for South Sudanese. However, they have this ‘habit’ of appeasing individuals/groups instead of doing the right things. For example, during the SPLM liberation struggle, the international communities were aware of the fact that SPLM was fighting along tribal lines with leaders leading tribal dominated groups. But still, for reasons best known to them, they chose Dr. John as the main signatory to represent SPLM in the CPA with the Khartoum government, in 2005. His group perceived it as an international legitimation that gave Dinka the right to govern the country, which led to their domination and discrimination of others claiming to be the majority liberators who fought and won the war. Excluding the other groups’ leaders or not choosing a neutral figure or/and not having proper mechanism in place of how to manage this ‘timing bomb’ was not the right thing done by the international communities. This is what took us back to square one, war! With their vast experiences and advance expertise, they should have known better! But who can blame them since we are all victims of the survival of the fittest.
Now history is been repeated by endorsing peace that was aimed at creating positions for one particular group (SPLM-IG-SPLM-IO) with others scrambling for left-overs just to appease the SPLM tribal political elites. This is not doing any justice to the people of South Sudan. Instead, it is cementing the culture of getting away with anything. Yes, the war started as Dinka & Nuer war that also dominated SPLM-IG & SPLM-IO respectively. But that was just an iceberg to the long history of grievances and injustice that was blown up by these two tribes, Dinka & Nuer. Tribalism, domination, corruptions and injustices etc. have long legacy in the history of South Sudan. Leaving other opposition groups out from the negotiations tables would not let the problems go away because these groups represent legitimate grievances of the people of South Sudan. As long as those voices are loud out there, South Sudan will not see peace. And peace without justice don’t exist, as such, forcing peace but doing almost nothing to the injustice done to the people of South Sudanese is just prolonging suffering.
What international communities should have done better was laying an even playground for every group and following it through. By doing so, they wouldn’t get manipulated by any group and their credibility won’t be question. Also, everyone can see that they are following a honest validated standard aiming at first and foremost, helping the people of South Sudan but not only political tribal elites. And they would have created an environment of trust for every group to work in. But by appeasing one group over the others widens trust gap among groups and between groups and the international communities.
Opposition movements/parties
Opposition groups and their leaders should see values in working together as much as possible. SPLM legacy created a damage that is beyond repair. Lack of trust will remain a very important element of working together especially among political leaders. They should seize this opportunity as an exercise for creating coalitions in the upcoming government they are all aspiring for. No one group can win this war alone and even if they do, they will still need others to form a government. This is what SPLM party failed to realize because they have different agenda for the people of South Sudan. Opposition’s groups must learn from SPLM experiences but not implementing them.
They must also show to the international communities and the people of South Sudan the alternative they got to Kirr regime. Struggle starts to cease, as soon as there is something new to replace the old. So, leaders should liberate themselves from the notion of survival of the fittest and embrace the law of Unity In Diversity and come up with ideas of how to work together as diverse political groups.
Bottom-Up approach
What kind of citizen can I be and how can I bring it about?
In the true bottom-up approach lies the idea of democracy in which people, irrespective of who they are, must have a say: in the system of their government, who should represent them at all levels, and how they want to be represented. It is a system of government in which power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or through freely elected representatives. Since South Sudanese have no experience of such system and are been ruled by tribal dictatorship with some totally brainwashed by tribal ideologies, building a united democratic nation will not be easy. Also, to be able to have a say, they need to be knowledgeable about their human and people rights as citizens and know how to exercise them correctly. Although, we are living in information era, these are not easy possibilities for most people in South Sudan.
However, this also can be an opportunity to create something organically new. Instead of getting confused from all the information about Federalism, democracy or bottom-up approach from different conflicting sources, South Sudanese at their various levels can start asking themselves: what kind of South Sudanese they want to be and how to bring this about? In asking such questions, they will start to realize the importance of their will power in affecting change that are at the heart of democracy. As they continue with such exercises at all levels, they will not only learn how to exercise their will power to affect change in becoming the citizens they want to be but also creating the kind of a nation they deserved to live in. This, in my opinion, is a very important step to take prior to government systems because the people need to be prepared in exercising democracy before offering them political systems of governance to choose from. To do this, they must start to embrace and understand the law of Unity In Diversity, which lays foundation for this exercise and will help them understand the crisis of identity they found themselves in and start to break free to build a unified identity while maintaining essential unique ones. They will start to explore values that truly identified them as South Sudanese and start to build a unified global identity out of it. These are basic steps that can start immediately as peace building process towards nation building while others steps are been set-up.
In Conclusion, SPLM South Sudan project failed apart as a result of identity crisis, because SPLM abandoned its own vision and created a tribal hegemony. In so doing, they turned South Sudanese dreams into nightmares and break them into pieces against each other. The law of Unity In Diversity explains in details how this come to be and offers recommendations of how a unified South Sudanese identity can be created for a peaceful sustainable South Sudan.
REFENCES
Unity In Diversity, what is it? https://pdm.home.blog/2019/10/01/unity-in-diversity-what-is-it/
The Bitter Truth about South Sudan War: Power, Money and Land https://pdm.home.blog/2019/09/14/the-bitter-truth-about-south-sudans-war-power-money-and-land/
South Sudan, a country at cross roads https://pdm.home.blog/2019/09/07/south-sudan-a-country-at-a-crossroads/
The SPLM/A war of occupation in Madiland, a conspiracy and hidden evil agenda of the Dinka Bor https://ssnewsnow.com/opinion-the-splm-a-war-of-occupation-in-madiland-a-conspiracy-and-hidden-evil-agenda-of-the-dinka-bor/
NAS and Federalism for a Peaceful and Prosperous South Sudanhttps://pdm.home.blog/2020/03/10/nas-and-federalism-for-a-peaceful-and-prosperous-south-sudan/
Security arrangement, what is it about and for whom? https://pdm.home.blog/2020/03/01/security-arrangements-what-is-it-about-and-for-whom/
The root causes of war in South Sudan, where are our votes? https://pdm.home.blog/2020/01/29/the-root-causes-of-war-in-south-sudan-where-are-our-votes/
Pinaud, C. (2021) War and Genocide in South Sudan. Cornell University Press.
de Vries, L. & Justin, P. H. (2014) A failure of governance: Understanding South Sudan’s conflict dynamics beyond the political and humanitarian crisis. Politique africaine. (3), 159–175.
Dialogues on diversity and unity in federal countries (volume 7, 2008), edited by Rupak Chattopadhay and Abigail Ostien Karos
Unity In Diversity Europe and the European Union: Enlargement and Constitutional Treaty (edited by Micheal Herslund & Ramona Samaon, 2005).
[1] South Sudan liberty, https://www.southsudanliberty.com/news/index.php/latest-news/1249-the-jieng-council-of-elders-jce-2015-master-plan, 10 October 2021, and South Sudan News now, https://ssnewsnow.com/opinion-the-splm-a-war-of-occupation-in-madiland-a-conspiracy-and-hidden-evil-agenda-of-the-dinka-bor/, 10 October 2021.
Equatoria Broadcasting Corporation 