What if the un-representatives abstracted the representatives? By Marial Mach’ Aduot Mach, AUSTRALIA
APR. 3/2011, SSN; The idea of democracy is a very new concept to current political players in South Sudan including the ruling parameters in the SPLM. This is not an analysis to political situation in the South, but I am directly responding to Lokonyen Aldo article entitled, ‘SPLM should know by now the high and real danger of having a one-party system’. This author is entirely entitled to his options; however, my argument is not to champion political monopoly or the SPLM monolithicism rather than correcting some confusion in Lokonyen Aldo's argument. Mr. Lokonyen mentioned in his article the rumour about the bill that will limit other parties’ participation in south Sudan politics and what he calls representative democracy. He emphasises the system of representative as the situation “whereby the people elect their representatives to a national parliament”. The rhetoric of this argument in my view leads to misuse and misquoted term of democracy based on his argument of multiparty system. First, concept of democracy is apt as the government of the People basd on what the American president, Abraham Lincoln emphasised. This form of the government is a dream of many southern Sudanese, but do the people in form of Lokonyen really know how to achieve that type of government? Lokonyen Aldo and some in his like can suggest the eviction of SPLM from the power, proliferation of political parties and so much more. However, none of them matches the feature of government of the people by the people. As Lokonyen mentioned representative government, the most important and the simplest aspect in achieving that type of government is the confirming of the attachment the people in general have in their government or other political parties seeking to bring about democracy and this is the main point missed by Lokonyen and other political parties in South Sudan. I can simply insist or object Lokonyen claim that there are no many political parties in south Sudan except two, SPLM the ruling party and SPLM-DC plus minors in coalitions with SPLM. No party in this case is denied a political right. However, in representative democracy claimed by Lokonyen, there are people, (citizens) who elected the leaders including the leaders of opposition with mandate to make or change policies on people's behave because of representation mandate. However, in south Sudan those who claim to be opposition leaders and parties are either based in Canada, Khartoum, UK or in form of Athor without representing anybody in Juba Legislative Assembly. The question Mr. Lokonyen is, where on earth should these people be allowed near the people's parliament? What mandate do they have if they are not elected members to oppose the government of the people? Who are they representing? Do they live with the conviction of representative democracy you mentioned? You can cite citizenship rights as the case, but they take it too far from what I have as also a citizen. Here I will advise you on what I think of them in form of argument from the influential political philosophies. Thomas Hill Green emphasised what he calls positive freedom and negative. The distinction between negative and positive is that positive freedom is a springboard to social moral, and rights that encourage recognised as contributing to the common good of the society. In correlation to your thoughts, are you suggesting to the SPLM or south Sudan that their authority as an elected parliament must be replaced and (Athority)? Maj. Gen. Abdel-Bagi Ayii, Lt. Gen. Athor Deng and Maj. Gatdat leading the list of discontentment, but do their opposition to government match the democratic spectrum you mentioned, or do these parties and armies of the rebellious try to impose their political wills? I will suggest that both elements do not know the system you claim to be put in place. Make no mistake I don’t want to give a proxy judgment here, but I believe in political sense that some leaders of opposition parties in South Sudan have failed seriously to understand the political convictions, or otherwise they are labouring under the illusion of selfishness. Finally, I would stress that there is nothing wrong with opposing the government when the opposition is actually like SPLM-DC who is not absolute, but is holding the constitutional post in the south Sudan. However those who're seating in Canada or Khartoum without any constitutional mandate are playing with fire by creating the mockery to political aspect of democracy because of their selfish political ubiquitous which is not in correlate with democracy and its most significant items of the administrative power and freedom to choose representatives voluntarily. South Sudan will be democratic for the opposition if they abound the tactical fallacy and adopt the constructive inclusive policy concept that is not expressed in rebellions, or treason to state interest, with the connived intent of satisfying their personal needs. Marial Mach’ Aduot Mach is the southern Sudanese studying at the school of politics and international studies at Deakin University, Australia. He can be reach for comment 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.
