Arab style unity unsustainable in Republic of South Sudan By Jacob K. Lupai, SOUTH SUDAN
MAY 23/2011, SSN; South Sudan was largely ignored until after World War I when the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium (1899-1955) brought it under British colonial rule. The region’s limited commerce was in the hands of Arab merchants popularly known as Jallaba in the South. Whatever social services existed were provided by Christian missionaries who operated schools and medical clinics. Although potentially a rich agricultural zone, the economic development of the South lagged far behind that in the North. In the rise of Sudanese nationalism, nationalists advocated a centralized system of government in Khartoum directly responsible for both the North and South. One would have seen this as a process of bringing both the North and South to the same level of development. However, the nationalists saw British colonial rule as virtually effecting the division of Sudan and preventing its unification through a natural process of Arabisation and Islamisation. Responding to larger interests in the Middle East, the British had become sensitive to Arab criticism of the South being treated as separate from the North. Through agitation by the Arabs or rather northern nationalists the British authorities responsible for the northern provinces determined that Sudan should be administered as one country. To allay the fears of southerners and British officials working in the South, and to assure them that southern political and cultural rights would be safeguarded in a united Sudan, a conference was convened in Juba. In the end, however, the conference was only intended to get a southern endorsement of decisions already made in the North. When Sudan achieved independence, the government inherited problems left over from the British colonial rule. The problems included uneven development between the North and South, and southern fears of domination by northerners. Wholesale replacement of British administrators in the South by northern Sudanese was to confirm southern fears of domination by the Arabs of the North. Prior to independence the Arabs gave southerners assurances that their demand for a federal system of government would be given full consideration. However, the Arabs dominated government policy was to ignore completely the southern demand for a federal system and to assimilate the South through a policy of Arabisation and Islamisation that was pursued vigorously. The centralized system of government adopted by the Arabs mistakenly to sustain the unity of Sudan instead institutionalized Arab arrogance and domination in the South. Only a day dreamer would not think this couldn’t provoke southerners into an open rebellion against the Arab dominated government. Indeed southerners rebelled when their demand for a federal system was not met for a sustainable unity of Sudan. Instead of a demand for a federal system, after a series of devastating liberation wars in the struggle for equality, justice and prosperity, the South is now virtually an independent Republic of South Sudan. However, all indications are that the Republic of South Sudan may start being an independent nation on the wrong foot. A draft transitional constitution of the Republic of South Sudan has been prepared for adoption and has already been passed by the Government of South Sudan (GOSS) Council of Ministers. It is now awaiting deliberations by the South Sudan Legislative Assembly (SSLA) for final adoption as the basis of the GOSS governance of the South for the next four years. One serious flaw of the draft transitional constitution, though, is the absence of a clear definition and commitment to a decentralized system of government. The South had struggled for over four decades for a decentralized system of government in Sudan but finally opted for independence because the Arabs could not be trusted anymore for the high sacrifices made. One may find it strange that South Sudan is now adopting a centralized system of government that it had vigorously fought against. The draft transitional constitution touches vaguely on decentralization and then goes on to contradict the concept of decentralization by centralizing services such as the police service and the interference in the state’s affairs when for example the GOSS is given powers to sack an elected governor and to also dissolve an elected state assembly. Those with a very narrow view of decentralization perceive it as an introduction of tribalism or regionalism and so erroneously believe decentralization must be fought tooth and nail. Tribalism has existed and will always exist. What can be done is to reduce it to levels that minimize the raising of eye brows. Others who dread Kokora think decentralization is an Equatorian thing to deny them the privileges that are being enjoyed without limits and the security Equatoria can comfortably offer. Scientifically, a federal system has nothing to do with denying people’s right to privileges. Before independence of Sudan from colonial rule southerners were on record as the first of Sudanese to demand a federal system as one of the best form of government to keep Sudan united. Unfortunately greed, as it is now being displayed, was not helpful in sustaining the unity of Sudan. The greedy wanted a centralized system so that they were the only seen as powerful and with power the rest were nothing but in position of junior partners and so unequal in privileges. In South Sudan a centralized system is not in the common interest. The common interest here is a federal system where the sharing of powers and responsibilities with the center and the states are for better governance and delivery of basic services to people at the grassroots. This is democracy because it helps to empower people to participate in running their own affairs with less interference from the center. In any heterogeneous society the basic problem is how to attain unity. Unity cannot be attained by rushing in a poorly though out transitional constitution that favors centralization. Unity is attained by recognizing and accepting the principle of living in diversity. A federal system or decentralization is therefore appropriate in the attainment of unity where there are diversities. We in South Sudan cannot claim to be homogenous. A federal system will strengthen unity. A casual observation may indicate that southerners are not entirely united as tribalism may appear in grand scale in various ways that polarize southerners. This may be where some think a centralized system of government will promote unity which is of course a flaw. In contrast, as a people southerners are indeed united without a centralized system. One doesn’t need to go far to prove this. The overwhelming result of the referendum of the 9th January 2011 proves that although southerners are of different tribes and states they will always stand together on a matter of their collective destiny. The fear being played out of disunity because of decentralization is at best perpetrated by losers to say the least. Poor governance linked with corruption and tribalism is something that people may want to forget as quickly as possible in independent Republic of South Sudan. However, the draft transitional constitution seems to turn the clock backward while in fact the clock should have been pushed forward in the era of independence where a bottom-up approach is adopted for empowerment and participatory national building. The 6-year interim period, without any shadow of doubt, has been an era of a top-down centralized system of government. One wouldn’t argue much against the interim period because we were not yet out of the wood. Now that we are independent nobody should be taken for a ride. This is the time to cleanse the South of excesses of all kinds and to move on with confidence. All the bad things have been tolerated almost beyond breaking point simply for the sake of independence to the South. Proponents of centralization are people who are clearly behaving like the Arabs. Those proponents of centralization should better be made aware that the Arab style unity is unsustainable in the Republic of South Sudan. The centralized system of government in Khartoum made the South to break away from the North. In simple terms this was because the centralized system was under developing the South. Do people really need to copy the centralized system of Khartoum to remain underdeveloped? Why then did we fight all those years with a loss of 4 million precious souls and immeasurable destruction of property and infrastructures to remain under the same system of underdevelopment? The comprehensive peace agreement (CPA) of 2005 had offered Sudan an opportunity of a federal system with a high level of decentralization. The GOSS derived its powers from the interim constitution provided for by the CPA but not from Khartoum. This federal system also meant that the states in the South were supposed to be fairly autonomous. This meant no encroachment on each other’s levels of functions and jurisdiction. However, governors of states were being replaced by the GOSS. In the draft transitional constitution the GOSS is given sweeping powers, for example, in the law enforcement agencies and security service. In the draft transitional constitution for police service Article 155(5) seems to contradict the concept of decentralization. In a decentralized system the state should be responsible for the maintenance of police professional standards, recruitment, training, deployment and transfer of police officers in the state. What the GOSS can do is to set a standard for recruitment and training of police officers from the states and eventual deployment of the police officers to their respective states. The GOSS can have a skeletal national police service that will assist the state police service in training, investigation of crimes, and in monitoring and evaluation of standards for improvement. This should be the same for the Prisons, Wildlife and Fire Brigade Service. In conclusion, the Arab style unity will be unsustainable in the Republic of South Sudan. In the Equatoria Conference that convened in Juba on 14-16 April 2011, on governance, the First Resolution reads, “A democratic federal system of governance should be adopted for the Republic of South Sudan, therefore the establishment of the new country as the Federal Republic of South Sudan”. The Resolution conveys a very strong message and a demand from a region that is the most stable and peaceful in South Sudan. Behaving like the Arabs who had ignored the southern demand for a federal system won’t be in the interest of unity of the Republic of South Sudan in the long term. The belief in numerical superiority to bulldoze others is erroneous because this is not the way to promote unity. It is through dialogue and consensus that a peaceful co-existence may be realized in promoting unity in the Republic of South Sudan. We may need to revisit the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) policy on dialogue as a means of resolving contradictions and injustice. The author can be reached 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.
