The New Nation
* Article
* Comments (2)
email Email
print Print
pdfSave
separation
increase
decrease
separation
separation
*
*
*
*
By Jacob K. Lupai
May 1, 2011 — Precisely 70 days are left for a new nation to emerge in
the world scene and the new nation will be called the Republic of
South Sudan. The birth of the new nation is as the result of a bitter
struggle against two word, injustice and unfairness, to be
telegraphic. The result came out of a vision that only with a nation
of their own would there be justice and fairness in abundance for all.
It was with this vision of justice and fairness for all that the
people of South Sudan in their determination paid the ultimate price
with their lives and destruction of their property to reach where they
are now. As can be seen it is now a matter of days not years for the
people of South Sudan to enjoy the freedom for which many precious
lives have been lost. Now for people who have been fighting an unjust
and unfair system for decades it will be strange indeed for the same
people either insensitively or through arrogance to institute a
repressive system.
Since the establishment of self-governing South Sudan as a result of a
comprehensive peace agreement (CPA) in 2005, there has been a lot of
murmuring against the government for poor delivery of basic services.
For example, in Sudanic Magazine of March/April 2008, a survey showed
that the government was perceived as 90 per cent corrupt and
inefficient, and those were the main reasons cited for the lack of
development in South Sudan since the CPA. According to the Sudanic
Magazine corruption existed at certain levels of government,
especially in the form of what was described as the award of contracts
to phony companies. However, despite the Southern Sudan
Anti-Corruption Commission declaration that there was no fear to name
and shame any public figure who engaged in corruption, hardly any
public figure had been named and shamed. When the Nile Commercial Bank
collapsed there has never been any great defaulter named and shamed.
All the aspirations of people are for a Republic of South Sudan that
will be based on a system of justice and fairness for all. However,
tribalism and nepotism may sow a seed of discord. For example, the
composition of government should fairly reflect regional diversities.
One fair way is to use distribution of population for regional balance
in power sharing notwithstanding competence and qualification. For
example, the population of Greater Upper Nile is 2,908,756, of Greater
Bahr el Ghazal 2,722,987 and of Equatoria is 2,628,747 according to
the 5th Sudan Population and Housing Census of 2008. This shows that
Greater Upper Nile is approximately 35 per cent, Greater Bahr el
Ghazal 33 and Equatoria 32 per cent of the total population of South
Sudan.
Taking the population percentage distribution in the three southern
regions, it is not only a fair way of power sharing but a requirement
in promoting unity in South Sudan. Using the percentage distribution
of 32 ministerial positions in the Government of South Sudan (GOSS)
Greater Upper Nile should have 11 positions, Greater Bahr el Ghazal
should have approximately 11 and Equatoria 10 ministerial positions.
Indeed in all fairness Greater Upper Nile has 11 ministerial positions
in the GOSS. In contrast Greater Bahr el Ghazal has 12 ministerial
positions and Equatoria has 9 per cent. In all the distribution of
ministerial positions according to the population in each region was
fair. One only hopes that this should also be reflected in all
institutions of the GOSS for fairness for all.
One worrying scenario and hopefully it will not be the trend is the
domination of one ethnic group in government. Twelve or 37.5 per cent
of the 32 ministerial positions are occupied by members of only one
ethnic group. Although the one ethnic group straddles two greater
southern regions is no justification for such hegemony. Out of 15
advisors 7 are from the one ethnic group and this is about 47 per cent
of advisory positions. However, in regional distribution of advisors
Greater Upper Nile has about 33 per cent, Greater Bahr el Ghazal 40
and Equatoria has 27 per cent of advisory positions in the GOSS. This
may not be unfair.
Another area of concern where the new nation is to be extra careful is
foreign affairs. This is specifically about foreign missions of the
Republic of South Sudan. People assigned to foreign missions must have
in-depth understanding of diplomacy. This is because that is where one
is able to represent South Sudan, to market recognition of the new
nation globally and to articulate the priorities of government in
building relationships with foreign nations. It should be observed
that appointment of diplomats should not be on the basis of cronyism
and nepotism. It should not be based either on who has the family
links with people who matter. Those who are supposed to represent the
new nation should be people who are already tested in the field of
diplomacy and understanding it like the back of their hands. It is
counterproductive to recruit novices as diplomats simply because they
are people with well connections. In diplomacy there is no room in
starting with the wrong foot.
One definition of diplomacy is interpretation of domestic policies to
the outside world as stated in official documents. Priority in
domestic issues is what should be reflected by diplomats. A diplomat
as an ambassador for that matter should be a high ranking official to
have the confidence in representing their country. Sending a novice as
a diplomat or as an ambassador because of ethnic connection to meet
and mingle with heads of powerful nations will be playing with the
image of the country. In other countries an ambassador is an
equivalent of a cabinet minister. For example, the Ethiopian Foreign
Minister is assigned as an ambassador to China, a powerful country.
Also the Ugandan Internal Minister is assigned to the UN as a
representative. In all a cadre for foreign missions should be well
groomed for effective representation. Those assigned to foreign
missions should be knowledgeable of the countries to which they are
heading. People must also have communication skills for public
diplomacy. Family connection should not be the qualification to serve
in foreign missions otherwise this in itself is corruption.
The Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011 is
already out and is available in the Internet. Different people
interpret a constitution differently as there are already voices
claiming that the Transitional Constitution is partisan and ignores
views of the other sections of the country. In the Equatoria
Conference 2011, on governance, the conference calls for a federal
system of government for the Republic of South Sudan. However, the
Transitional Constitution even does not seem to mention the word
federal. Nonetheless, to be fair Article 161(1) says, “The territory
of South Sudan is composed of ten states governed on the basis of
decentralization”. It is only Articles 155, 156, 157 and 158 that seem
to throw the concept of decentralization into confusion. For example,
in Article 155 the confusion arises in sub-articles 1, 5 and 7. The
question one may like to ask is, will there be parallel national
police service institutions to those of the states? Clearly the
Transitional Constitution inclines towards a centralized system of
government for the Republic of South Sudan where the role of the state
becomes very minimal indeed for example in the police, prisons,
wildlife and fire brigade service. The emphasis on decentralization
seems to have been thrown out of the window from the Transitional
Constitution. Power sharing between the centre and the state is hardly
spelt out clearly as truly in a federal system. Anyway we may have the
benefit of the doubt as this is not a permanent constitution
In conclusion, the new nation in waiting is going to face
unprecedented challenges some of which will be manmade. For example,
it is clear that the review of the constitution has not been based on
consensus. Using a constitution as an instrument of domination will
only invite a negative reaction which will not only threaten the unity
of a country but in the case of the Republic of South Sudan with make
others to take advantage to destroy the hard won independence. The
Transitional Constitution seems to show a strong tendency in others
wanting to dominate. What people may not understand is that this is
21st century that none in their right senses will ever put up with
marginalization after decades of dehumanization. A federal system with
equitable sharing of power and wealth is the only appropriate system
one can think of right now as the guarantor of unity of the Republic
of South Sudan. The latent threat of the use of law enforcing agencies
to protect the constitution in promoting domination will not work.
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.
