Right path for multi-party democracy in South Sudan
* Article
* Comments (1)
email Email
print Print
pdfSave
separation
increase
decrease
separation
separation
*
*
*
*
By James Okuk
May 12, 2011 — “So by insisting that the current SSLA is not elected
in an independent South Sudan, the DTCSS should be shelved until
independence comes, presidential and parliamentary elections take
place and a new SSLA is constituted?”, a Southern intellectual wrote
to me. No, my answer cannot be affirmative to his question because
there is something incorrect in its formulation.
My point is this, if John Luk’s DTCSS ends up being ratified by
unmandated SSLA, we will start the new nation on illegitimate wrong
path. We will swear-in, as a consequence, an illegitimate government
with all its branches (legislative, executive and Judiciary).
Yes, it should be the people to come the top to resolve the
constitution vacuum that is about to happen in South Sudan. But this
is not practical to happen in the short term (two months) a head to
the new country. It can only happen in long term (2 years and above)
when there is enough time to call for elections in the new independent
country rather than depending on the outdated elections of the old
Sudan with its region of Southern Sudan.
Notwithstanding, the general elections in the new country need to have
constitutional and institutional bases for their legitimacy. But how
do we create these two bases:
a) By empowering South Sudan Political Parties in the context of
multi-party democracy to act on behalf of the people just for the sake
of bridging the constitutional vacuum that will occur once the
independence of South Sudan is declared. As South Sudan Political
Parties gave Salva Kiir Mayardit the mandate to be the President of
the new independent country, so shall they also ratify the Draft
Interim Constitution of South Sudan (DICSS) to legitimize the mandated
President and the government that he is going to form with all its
branches.
b) By calling for Constitutional Constituent Assembly under the DICSS
within 18 - 20 months to make a constitution for the New Country
served by Non-Partisan Constitutional Review Commission. For example,
Prof. Yac Pal Gai could be contracted to do this service like what he
did in Kenya some few years back. Once the Constitution of South Sudan
(CSS) is enacted, then under its mandate, the first general elections
should be held in South Sudan to bring it the first elected Parliament
in the country.
Thus, for me, there is no need for any Transitional Parliament in
South Sudan during the interim period (from July 2011) until the first
general elections takes place in May 2013. This will save us from the
clash that might occur between the SSLA and the Constitutional
Constituent Assembly because each of them will claim that it has the
legitimacy to be the voice of the people. It will also save us from
double role that might be played by the current SSLA which John Luk’s
DTCSS and Equatoria Petioners want to transform into National
Parliament of the new country, and that of the Constitutional
Constituent Assembly. After all history has already taught us that a
country can be ran transitionally for a shorter period without a
parliament until a problem is fixed.
For sure, the Equatoria Diaspora Petition is asking for crucial
amendments of John Luk’s DTCSS but the Petitioners are trying to spoil
the good work by mandating the unmandated SSLA to consider the
amendments and ratify the DTCSS. Also the Petitioners do not value the
role that need to be played by multi-political parties in South Sudan.
For me, this is like good means being spoiled by bad end. It is like
asking a parliament of a foreign country to ratify the constitution of
another country. In other words, it is like asking the SSLA to forget
about political parties in South Sudan. Thus, both John Luk’s draft
constitution and the Equatoria Diaspora Petition is like asking
Nigeria Parliament to ratify the constitution of the independent and
sovereign South Sudan. This is weird and illegitimate because it is
well known that the SSLA is an interim and sub-regional one whose life
span and mandate is dictated by the CPA’s era (January 9, 2005 - July
9, 2011) in the united Sudan and nothing beyond.
What I am saying here is not akin to democracy if it is a multi-party
democracy as stipulated in the ICSS and DTCSS. This type of
multi-party democracy is defined as rule of the people through their
political parties who nominate representatives to be elected for
parliamentary or executive posts in the government. Whether the
political parties are unknown or known, briefcase or family clubs or
not is a different matter because what matters is to have political
parties to make multi-party democracy meaningful and essential. Even
if many of them are weak at the moment it should be understandable due
to the situation of the new country. With encouragement and empowering
they can improve and become strong pillars for growth and maturity of
multiparty democracy in the Republic of South Sudan.
In recap, if the current members of the SSLA were elected for an
independent South Sudan, then it would have been right and legitimate
for them to deal with the DTCSS and ratify it in the context of
multi-party democracy. Alas! The SSLA is not an institution of
independent South Sudan. Thus, let’s try short interim period in South
Sudan without any need for a transitional Parliament.
Dr. James Okuk is a PhD Student in Field of Political Philosophy from
the University of Nairobi. He 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.
