Home page | Comment Tuesday 10 May 2011
South Sudan constitution under microscope
* Article
* Comments (1)
email Email
print Print
pdfSave
separation
increase
decrease
separation
separation
*
*
*
*
By Jacob K. Lupai
May 9, 2011 — The Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South
Sudan, 2011 is under microscope because it seems the wider public has
received it with mixed feelings. The various political parties have
reservations and one party in particular has expressed an outright
rejection of the transitional constitution. For this reason the
transitional constitution is under microscope to find out why people
have mixed feelings or indifferent to the Transitional Constitution of
the Republic of South Sudan, 2011.
The problem started when the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS)
initiated the review of the Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan,
2005. It is worth noting that the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement
(SPLM) is the lead political party in GOSS. In effecting the review of
the Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan, 2005, the President of
GOSS issued a decree appointing a constitutional review committee of
24 persons of whom 23 were SPLM members. The reaction of the other
South Sudan political parties was swift. The parties rejected the
action of the President as unilateral and claimed to be contrary to
earlier resolutions of all South Sudanese political parties’
conference. To resolve the matter 11 persons from the other South
Sudan political parties, 1 from civil society and 2 from faith-based
groups were added to the constitutional review committee.
Again another decree was issued by the President of GOSS adding 17
more SPLM members to the constitutional review committee. This pushed
the number of SPLM members to 40. This shows that the SPLM membership
of the constitutional review committee was about 73 per cent. This
obviously suggests that the SPLM members were the majority in the
constitutional review committee. It was therefore not strange when the
constitutional review committee would be influenced by the majority
SPLM members. This was one of the problems.
One question of relevance to ask is does the Transitional Constitution
of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011 reflect dominant values within
South Sudan? If the Transitional Constitution does not reflect
dominant values then prospects for stability in South Sudan may be
poor. For example, democracy is highly valued in the SPLM vision,
programme and constitution. In the Constitution of the SPLM 1998,
Article 4.1 reads, “The complete destruction of the minority,
oppressive clique regime of the Old Sudan in all its forms; and its
replacement by the New Sudan that shall be built on a free, just,
democratic and secular system of governance based on the free will and
popular participation of all the people of the New Sudan, as came in
the programme of the SPLM”.
One phrase that captures the eye in Article 4.1 of the Constitution of
the SPLM 1998 is “popular participation of all the people”. It is
therefore difficult to see how the SPLM could disregard its own
Constitution by being exclusive in the review of the Interim
Constitution of Southern Sudan, 2005. This may make the SPLM to be
perceived as preaching what it does not intend to honour, hence being
of double standards and untrustworthy promoter of dictatorship through
the back door. This may alienate the SPLM members who hold dearly
democratic values.
In an open debate or forum it is difficult to see how the Transitional
Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011 can stand the test
of democracy. Clearly the SPLM is ardently promoting dictatorship
similar to that of the National Congress Party (NCP) in the North. The
call for a federal system of governance is not only popular but it is
enshrined in the Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan, 2005 as
decentralization. However, in the Transitional Constitution
decentralization has not been articulated as expected. Worse the
Transitional Constitution is centralizing power. In contrast the three
States of Equatoria are definitively for a federal system of
governance. Northern and Western Bahr el Ghazal States may most likely
opt for a federal system and so do Upper Nile and Unity States.
It can be seen that statistically the majority of southern states and
political parties are for a federal system of governance. The majority
of South Sudan political parties are also ready for a federal system.
It is only some elements in the SPLM that are the odd ones out. It is
most probable that in an election the SPLM will suffer massively
because of this reactionary behavior. No one in their right senses
will vote for a party that is out of touch and worse is perceived as
of double standards not only lacking in principles but with a blurred
vision.
It is not difficult to see how the SPLM is leaning towards
dictatorship. For example, Article 101 (r and s) of the Transitional
Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011 clearly states that
the President can remove state Governor and/or dissolve a state
legislative assembly and can also appoint a state Governor. Article
164(2) also shows that the Governor of each State shall appoint and
relieve constitutional post holders in consultation with the
President. The implication here is that the President may have veto
powers to block the appointment and relief of a State constitutional
post holder such as a deputy governor, advisor and a minister. In a
federal system this may be a gross interference in State affairs. This
will be a clear concentration of power at the centre. In other words
this is centralization which is a contradiction to Articles 1(4) and
47(b) of the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan,
2011. Clearly the SPLM is leaning towards dictatorship which is likely
to appall its principled democratic members.
The Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011 is
a blatant contradiction to what the SPLM has stood for since its
inception. In the Vision, Programme and Constitution of the SPLM, 1998
and specifically in its 15-point programme, the SPLM is crystal clear
that it “shall establish and base itself on the democratic path of
development, which empowers and encourages active participation of all
citizens at all levels in their liberation and in their own
governance, and where the people in positions of authority or
decision-making are mandated periodically by the people”.
On governance the SPLM has said it shall setup and establish good
governance, where the exercise of political, economic and
administrative authority in the management of the country’s affairs at
all levels shall be people-based, so that individuals and groups have
an effective say in the allocation and management of resources and in
decisions that affect their lives. The SPLM couldn’t have been
abundantly clearer in its 15-point programme that the Transitional
Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011 seems to undermine.
It is unfortunate that we now have a bunch of reactionaries
masquerading as revolutionary grossly misleading people.
In conclusion, the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South
Sudan, 2011 is a controversial kind of a present to the people of
South Sudan in the eve of independence. Let’s hope that this will not
spoil the festive mood of the people on 9 July 2011. A federal system
is being disregarded contrary to the concepts in the Vision, Programme
and Constitution of the SPLM, 1998. However, it is obvious that the
majority of southern States will opt for a federal system and so do
the majority of southern political parties. There are probably some
few reactionaries in the SPLM who do not care about the future of the
Republic of South Sudan but only their narrow interest. The paper on
which the Transitional Constitution has been printed could better be
recycled into quality office tissue paper as a present in the eve of
independence. This may be the contempt in which the Transitional
Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011 is held.
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.
