A federal system is most appropriate for South Sudan
* Article
* Comments (10)
email Email
print Print
pdfSave
separation
increase
decrease
separation
separation
*
*
*
*
By Jacob K. Lupai
April 23, 2011 — To begin with power and resources have been
disproportionately concentrated at the centre to the obvious
disadvantage to development in the states. A federal system is the
most appropriate for development in the states for people to have a
chance of a high standard of living as a peace dividend for the
sacrifices made during the liberation struggle. For the most ignorant
and pretentious intellectuals a federal system is not a discrimination
against a tribe but objectively a system of promoting unity in
diversity and in accelerating socio-economic development for people to
enjoy a good life. This, however, will not restrict the movement and
residence of people whenever they choose to live anywhere in South
Sudan as the constitution may guarantee.
A federal system is one that shares the powers of government between
the centre (federal) and state governments. Each level of government
has specific powers and both levels have their own agencies and
officials. In a federal system a nation has the flexibility to
accommodate economic and cultural differences which correlate
significantly with geography. States laws in a federal system can be
adapted to local conditions in a way that is difficult to achieve
through a national government. By these characteristics of a federal
system overall satisfaction can be maximized in promoting unity in
diversity. It can be asserted that a federal system is more democratic
than a unitary system because there are more levels of government for
public opinion to affect.
A federal system of government is appropriate for the Republic of
South Sudan and the sooner the better. However, there will be skeptics
especially those who are living in the past. In 1981 Equatoria as a
province agitated for a decentralized system of government in South
Sudan. This was not received kindly by the other southern provinces of
Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile which only seemed to aspire to produce
rulers not leaders. Nonetheless the decentralisation of South Sudan
went ahead. South Sudan was decentralized into three autonomous
regions of Equatoria, Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile. This was received
not only with anger but animosity where Equatorians were to suffer
needlessly and even today Equatorians are still held in contempt. The
decentralization of South Sudan then became derogatorily known as
Kokora (division) and this was used to stigmastised Equatorians as
less nationalists.
As time passed Equatorians were exonerated when the three southern
regions of Equatoria, Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile were themselves
further decentralized into a total of ten states. Bahr el Ghazal and
Upper Nile which were at first very bitter with Equatoria for Kokora
were themselves decentralised into 4 and 3 states respectively. Now
why aren’t the people of Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile bitter with
each other for what is exactly Kokora in their midst. Decentralisation
or what others would like to refer to as Kokora is now a fact of life
in South 8udan. There may be more states created. Shall we call it
decentralization or Kokora?
Support for a federal system of government is greater than ever
before. The federal system of government has an important role in
keeping the peace and preventing national fragmentation. If North
Sudan had accepted the southern demand for a federal system of
government in Sudan, probably South Sudan would not have fought bitter
wars for separation and ultimately independence. In a federation there
is tolerance for diversity and this has the further advantage of
preventing the national government from being forced to take sides on
matters that may be of purely regional concern. Decentralised
governments make better decisions than centralized ones and state
governments can be more closely supervised because of lower monitoring
costs. Citizens can also exercise more effective control over state
government officials when everything is on a small scale. Centralised
governments encourage wasteful lobbying by interest groups engaged in
the pursuit of ethnic group benefits or privileges at the expense of
development at the grassroots.
It can be asserted that federations are exceptionally stable. Of the
five countries that survived the 20th century without a violent change
of government, four are federations and they are the United States of
America, Canada, Australia and Switzerland. The unitary United Kingdom
is slowly disintegrating. In 1921 Ireland seceded to become the
Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland as part of the unitary United
Kingdom fought a civil war for 30 years. A Scottish separatism was
partly satisfied by 1998 federal arrangement known as devolution
scheme. Adopted in time, a federal system might have saved the United
Kingdom. Sudan is disintegrating as the South is already breaking away
because of the failure to adopt a federal system in time when it was
demanded. This should be a good lesson to the Republic of South Sudan.
What is not realized of a federal system is the value of competition
among the states as a means of enhancing the international
competitiveness of the nation as a whole. An awareness of the positive
benefits of a federal system will make a constitutional debate a more
fruitful one. For the Republic of South Sudan the adoption of a
federal system is appropriate. This is because there is a high
concentration of power and resources at the centre to the disadvantage
of states. Almost the same government structures at the centre are
duplicated at the state level. The centre assumes the role of
implementer of projects in the state while in fact it should have been
the responsibility of the state. Central structures should have been
skeletal with most staff deployed under the state governments. The
states should be empowered and resourced for self-reliance instead of
handouts from the centre.
A federal system will accelerate development. The centralised system
of government under the comprehensive peace agreement (CPA) has shown
that a federal system is preferable. For the last six years of the
interim period no running clean drinking water system has been
developed. Health services, sanitation, security to mention but a few
all have not been guaranteed. Infrastructures have not been developed
as expected. This goes to confirm that only a federal system where the
states are empowered and resourced can basic services to the people be
delivered.
In conclusion, where resources and power have been concentrated at the
centre and with a high level of corruption development is slow to pick
up. The experience of the 6-year interim period from 2005 to 2011
confirms that a federal system is appropriate for the Republic of
South Sudan. Those who are not secure will always be up in arms
against a federal system. However, revolutionaries with a vision of
development of the Republic of South Sudan will have no problem with a
federal system of government. Only the corrupt who hate any system of
accountability will sabotage the adoption of federation. For the
hardworking that are genuinely keen on rapid development of their
states there is no way except the adoption of a federal system for the
Republic of South Sudan with minimum delay.
The author can be reached at [email protected]
--
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.
