South Sudan : Is SPLM grooming internal and external opposition on political transition?
By Gatkuoth Deng , USA APR. 8/2011, SSN; One would conclude without any doubt after careful observations that the wind of opposition or pressures internally and from external players has begun to blow harder against the ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) in disapproval of its chosen way of mishandling the review of the interim constitution of Southern Sudan, 2005, and other matters which are dear to achieving good governance in the region. The immediate question that begs an answer is: are SPLM leaders aware of this blowing wind in opposition to their negative attitude? And if yes, why are they not yielding to the pressure in its early stage before it could gather itself into a political (peaceful or violent) storm? I know SPLM is traditionally known for the habit of resisting true democratic changes in the past, but this time should be understood to be a different era all together. Resisting establishing a democratic stable political environment in the new country of the Republic of South Sudan (after the people of this region voted for their freedom from any type of injustice) will not be a safe journey for the ruling party that earned friends during the liberation struggle in the name of fighting for freedom and democratic transformation in Sudan. Currently in South Sudan if the ruling SPLM were to conduct a referendum on the amendment of the interim constitution of Southern Sudan, I would assure them that a majority of the people would vote to see a provision or clause calling for immediate conduct of general elections after independence (I refer readers to the Sudan Tribune website where over 70% of several thousands who participated in the electronic voting want fresh elections after independence). These is probably because the April 2010 elections were not genuine, but were done and condoned in that rigged way for the sake of implementing the CPA in order to get elections out of the way on the road to the referendum. I also believe that a majority of South Sudanese would want to see an inclusive transitional political process to statehood in July and up to the time fresh post-independence elections are held. And in order to achieve this, an all-political parties inclusive process of the amendment of the interim constitution, without employing tactical maneuvers to abort their contributions in the process, would have been a prerequisite. SPLM seems to have ignored the importance of inclusive process in the amendment of the interim constitution of Southern Sudan , 2005. As a result the SPLM resisted singly using its mechanical majority in the technical committee tasked to amend the constitution, the idea of forming a fairly shared power in a broad-based government in July and of holding fresh general elections within 2 years after independence, among many other issues required for a smooth transition. The situation has now resulted to the withdrawal of 9 out of 14 other political parties who were in the first place reluctantly invited to the committee by South Sudan President Salva Kiir Miyardit after the SPLM had already kicked off the process. Now judging from the way the SPLM mishandles the process in light of the amendment of the interim constitution, and especially after mistreating the other political parties to the point of annoying them to withdraw their membership from the committee, external pressures have also begun to mount in criticism of the ruling party. The latest among the well known international organizations which monitor democratic processes worldwide and have criticized the SPLM are the US-based Carter Center and the International Crisis Group (ICG). They were critical of the SPLM’s internal as well as external transformational and transitional approaches. “This transition process, ICG says, should involve the establishment of internal party reforms at both state and national level, by comprehensively reviewing party structures and relationships and clearly distinguishing its party activities from its role in government. Now that South Sudan ’s referendum is complete and its independence from the North all but formalized, focus must increasingly shift to the political agenda at home. A new transitional government will preside over a fixed term from 9 July 2011, during which a broadly consultative review process should yield a permanent constitution,” the ICG report partly reads. Entitled “Politics and Transition in the New South Sudan”, the report urges the SPLM to demonstrate the “seriousness” of its plans to form a broad-based government, by appointing a significant number of opposition members to certain key ministries.” Also the rising number of internal armed rebellions has in many ways connections to the lack of democratic processes in South Sudan for the last six years. “The ICG report paints a potentially dark picture of the future of the south, citing the wave of armed insurgencies and numerous militia attacks that have rocked the region’s post-referendum era. These rebellions, it says, highlight “internal fault lines and latent grievances within the security sector.” “Continued fighting has challenged government capacity to manage domestic conflict, risks further polarization of ethnic communities and their political leaders and could stoke broader insecurity,” it warns. Therefore, the reading is that such internal discontents among the populace plus the ever increasing armed rebellions, coupled with external pressures which voice disapproval of SPLM’s mishandling of democratic transformation in the transitional process to statehood, are real threats that should be resolved amicably by the ruling party in order not for them to grow into a storm. The resultant storm can be blamed on the leadership of the SPLM because it will reflect on their refusal to transform into true democratic political leaders and organization. I should not blame much the three main leaders tasked with the job to amend the constitution. These leaders, whom Professor David De Chand once described in his article as ‘Gang-Three or G-3’, such as Mr. John Luk Jok (chair of the constitutional review committee), Mr. Telar Ring Deng (deputy chair) and Mr. Makuei Lueth (their assistant) are absolutely doing what should please, in the constitution, their only employer (President Salva Kiir), or else they may lose their jobs. However, I should not blame the three leaders exclusively because of situational approach they might have applied as a result of the conflict of interest that may be lingering in their heads. For example, Mr. John Luk Jok failed the April 2010 election in his constituency in Akobo. It was through the goodwill of President Kiir that he was appointed minister in the government. Mr. Telar Ring was a recently forgiven figure and resuscitated by President Kiir as his legal advisor following his suspension by the President over political issues. He could not get the guts again to challenge Kiir’s interests or else. The same situation faces Mr. Michael Makuei Lueth, whose current political fate is determined by a certain rival strong woman close to the President. That woman allegedly recommends to the President which appointed ministerial position should be given to Mr. Makuei. Any slightest disappointment of the Kiir’s clique by the three lawyers may result to losing of their jobs. President Salva Kiir shoulders most of the blame in producing a one-party rule constitution that favors his overstay in power while grooming the opposition and rough transition to statehood, unfortunately. This is because he has not been clear (or negatively clear) to his tasked officials to play the game democratically and inclusively and come out with the best democratically written constitution their professional experience would produce. Nevertheless, all the other senior SPLM leaders including the three mentioned above share the blame as a collective leadership. They have been silent, not yielding to the desired democratic constitutional review while the internal and external opposition storm is gathering around them, which may not be good for our young emerging nation. The author is a concerned South Sudanese residing in USA . He can be reached at: [email protected] COMMENTS, PLEASE CLICK HERE Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author(s) and do not represent those of the website. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JFD info" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jfdinfo?hl=en.
