The Battle for the Soul of South Sudan BY: Joana Adam, JUBA, RSS
OCT. 31, 2011,SSN; Over the last few weeks there has been fierce debate regarding the legacy of Dr. John Garang or more appropriately the battle for the soul of South Sudan. The issues being addressed are valid national issues but the manner in which they are degenerating into semantics and personal assaults are deplorable. Sometimes, we get embroiled in bitter arguments because we are asking the wrong questions or are totally oblivious to the point of views of others. This question presupposes that the new country needs a father, if so, who should it be? Is it wise at this moment in time, to ponder on questions that could potentially put the fragile unity of the new nation-state in jeopardy? Is Elhag Paul not being deliberately misquoted to score political points? In the wake of the detention of James Okuk, which is nothing but state terrorism, it is evidently risky to engage in political discourses, but to do otherwise is capitulation. People who believe in legitimate causes never capitulate. Otherwise in Tunisia, that young man, would not have set himself alive; in Torit in 1955, that soldier in the Equatoria Corps would not have fired and killed his northern commander; and Nelson Mandela would not have spent 27 years in South Africa’s apartheid jail. There is dignity in fighting for your principles even though you may not live to see fruits of the struggle. The Illusion of a nation The question of who should be the father of the nation presupposes that we have a nation, which I beg to disagree with. Although we have a country which has the potentials of being turned into a robustly sustainable nation, there should be no shame in admitting that at the moment, South Sudan is basically a tribal society. The Transitional Constitution 2011, Article 1:4 says “South Sudan is governed on the basis of a decentralised democratic system and is an all-embracing homeland for its people. It is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-lingual, multi-religious, and multi-racial entity where such diversities peacefully co-exist.” That the different ethnicities in South Sudan- small and large -found themselves in one geographical boundary was not the result of our considered and informed choice, but a historical accident imposed on us, as it was on the rest of the colonised world, during the European scramble for and partition of Africa in the 19th century, (1880-1914) formalised at the Berlin Conference 1885. The partition of Africa totally ignored ethnic and cultural diversities of the people and in most cases tribes were split across countries which have greatly contributed to Africa’s modern turbulent history. Hence amidst the multiplicity of tribes or nations in the new republic of South Sudan which is composed of at least 64 distinct tribes: (which can be found on www.Gurtong.net ), the Nuer nation, the Bari nation, the Dinka nation, the Azande nation, the Lotuho nation etc., when we talk of the father of the nation, which of these nations are we exactly referring to? True, the independence of South Sudan in July 2011 has for the first time in our history, created the existence of a sovereign nation-state: the republic of South Sudan which has a separate legal entity from its tribal constituent parts. Since the Constitution, recognises and unequivocally commits itself to honouring the ethnic, cultural and linguistic diversities in our country, in my view this should include recognition of the historical and cultural heritage of all the peoples of this country. This is all the more important because the peoples of South Sudan have had a limited history of co-existence. In fact our villagers have to date lived almost exclusive tribal lifestyles without adulteration from neighbouring communities. During the Turco-Egyptian and Anglo-Egyptian colonial eras, Southerners did not interact much among themselves but separately resisted slave trade from the comfort of their tribal zones. More often than not, intertribal contacts were overtly aggressive. After more than a century, tribal conflicts on the ground show that peaceful co-existence is still a long way away. It was the introduction of limited missionary education after the pacification of the tribal societies in the 1920’s that for the first time brought southern boys from their villages to interact with each other in common school environments such as Loka Intermediate, and Rumbek Secondary, and later Khartoum University. Between 1930 and 1950, socialisation in schools and migrations to urban areas facilitated limited inter-tribal interactions among the groups in question, which formed the nucleus for coordinated liberation struggle. These interactions were dramatically expanded after 1972 when Juba University was opened and Southern students were given opportunities to study in Egyptian universities. Paradoxically Khartoum University continued to deny admittance to majority of Southern students. The discriminatory educational policies of subsequent northern regimes from (1956-2005) enormously contributed to underdevelopment of the South. Graduates and students from these universities later became the human capital for the SPLA war. Nevertheless, in the 70’s experiences in Southern schools including girls schools were littered with brutal tribal fights. Today, in Juba University and I believe in other Southern universities; believe it or not, students are allowed to form tribal Associations contrary to the essence of university education, designed to broaden students’ intellectual as well as cultural horizons. The Anya-Nya leaders have made no secret that the Anya-Nya was a decentralised movement operated from the three provinces of Bahar el Ghazal, Upper Nile and Equatoria. Although coordinated from Owiny-Ki -Bul, people from the two provinces and elsewhere in Equatoria, came to the headquarters to receive military training, weapons and ammunitions and were dispatched back to their localities to fight the Arabs. This was in recognition of the peculiarities and distinctiveness of our communities, which resulted in the fair and transparent policy of absorption of soldiers into the Sudanese army after the Addis Ababa Agreement in 1972. A total of 6000 Anya-Nya soldiers were absorbed, 2,000 from each of the 3 provinces. The same policy was used in the absorption of the remaining soldiers into the police, prisons and wild life. In the true spirit of African brotherhood and fairness, the Anya Nya leader Gen Joseph Lagu, surrendered leadership of the High Executive Council to Abel Alier who was neither an Equatorian nor a freedom fighter, to concentrate on affairs of his soldiers. As a result a balanced government was formed and there was no corruption, nepotism or favouritism. This was South Sudan at its best, before the evils of tribalism started to creep in a few years later, over control of the regional government. The well documented history of the SPLA/M speaks for its self and I do not wish to indulge in it except where necessary. But what is clear is that unlike the previous movement, SPLA/M was a totally centralised, tribalised and even brutal regime. With a history as diverse, which stretches over decades, where so many from the different communities have paid the ultimate price, how can the provocative celebration of selected hero or hero’s not create a sense of resentment? Does it matter who Elhag Paul is? It must be stated that Mr. Paul was not the first to raise the issue under discussion in an article entitled “SPLM and Mass Media: Promoting history of falsity” published Sep/27/2011 on SSN and other sites. He simply echoed a feeling which was disturbing a lot of disenfranchised young Equatorians. Of course as expected, he got a fierce rebuttal notably from Deng Atem Dekuk in an article entitled: Dr. John Garang, the SPLM and the Question of Unity again published on this and other sites. One brother was so incensed with the response of Elhag Paul, to his rebuttal by Dekuk that he could not but ask the question, who is Elhag Paul? One wonders what, the relevance of such a question is. Is this the usual intimidatory tactics of pro-government advocates, to incite state authorities and some section of the population in hunt for Elhag Paul? In a democracy, should it really matter who a writer is or should we be more concerned about the content of his/her writing? The author in question doesn’t have to be a professor, a scholar, a researcher or anything. It is not helpful to try to derogate him either. Whether he is a villager or not; tall or short; or hails from this or that tribe, are all immaterial. What matters is the content of his writing and whether you agree with him or not. Secondly, intelligence is not a monopoly of one person, tribe, race or generation. If you will, God Almighty has fairly endowed all with this essential human commodity. Although our society is more than 75 % illiterate, we clearly display elitist tendencies and are obsessed with academic qualifications and other types of titles. Academics have their places in society but so do ordinary citizens. Our society is riddled with contradictions that, on the one hand we revere academic qualifications and intellectualism, on the other, we ostracise those who passionately defend their grounds as being intellectually arrogant. A good many of us are contemporaries and have witnessed our modern history unravel before our own eyes. We make references to documented texts, to emphasize points and for the benefit of younger readers and foreigners. It is pertinent for every writer to be objective and factual but as we can see, history is not an exact science like mathematics or physics, but full of biasness and subjectivity, (scientists may disagree on the exactness of science). In our political discourses we have discovered that history or political commentary is as much about stating facts as it is interpreting them. And that is the real issue because our interpretations of historical data, more often than not is clouded with personal bias and subjectivity. What did Elhag Paul, actually say? What I have gathered from Mr. Paul’s, writings is that he passionately believes in defending the cause, dignity and integrity of his marginalised constituents. If politics is a game of fighting your corner and protecting your interest, then it is his political right to do so. But he evidently treaded on a dangerous and highly emotive ground. Did he or did he not slander the dead? This debate will go on, even after we are all gone and buried. To put the sentimentalism aside, ELhag Paul did not slander the dead. Nobody can slander Dr. John Garang de Mabior. Like any other great leader, he has been immortalised and his legacy will continue to live. His widow Rebecca de Mabior said so in 2005; minutes after the helicopter carrying her husband came down. I am not simply trying to defend the author because has adequately defended himself - whether you agree with him or not is another matter. I believe the gist of Paul’s argument is not honouring Dr. John Garang as the father of the nation per se, but the exclusion of other equally deserving hero’s from being so honoured as a consequence of deliberate SPLM/A dominated government policies, manifested in relentless state owned media propaganda. The media orchestration of the late hero as the only national hero to the exclusion of others and its implications on our national psyche, and cultural heritage has been questioned by many, the latest in an article on southsudan.net entitled: What kind of message Malaak Ayuen wanted to convey to public through SSTV, ARM PROGRAMME? “It so good to have South Sudan arm force program that raise the moral of our people, but what is the purpose of that program of the very armed force of Malaak? What kind of message really Mr Malaak wanted to convey to public? Does Mr Malaak personally the owner of the program in order to downgraded other ethnic group of South Sudan throughout the time, and in SSTV program Mr Malaak attempted seriously to promote tribalism and favoritism on accountof others in the South?Is that SSTV Malaak arm force's Program a political or is it a military program.” The above paragraph is quoted verbatim. So the question of who is fooling who can equally be asked with respect to the motives of critics of Paul, who I believe are aiming to achieve the following objectives: 1) removing the names of Anya Nya and Anya-Nya 2 leaders from national recognition; 2) removing the names of all the separatists who perished in the hands of John Garang’s SPLA, from our national history; 3) the government’s use of the name of Dr. John Garang’s to oppress others and cling to power. In the SPLA/M Rumbek Conference Nov 29- Dec 1st 2004, it was clear that they didn’t really revere him contrary to what they’ll like the public to believe. This political machination is now a lifeline for Salva Kiir’s government that is drowning in kleptocracy. However nice we would like to be to Dr. Garang’s legacy, sometimes it is morally incongruent. It is a well-documented fact that Dr. Garang’s presided on a brutal and murderous regime. Many people are still living witnesses to this. No one can sensibly defend the morally grotesque act of lashing a dead body while the king himself was watching! This is the ultimate act of barbarity. What was the point of murdering political prisoners who had escaped during the Nashir revolt? Why was the veteran politician and liberator uncle Joseph Oduho shot dead after he was captured alive. How is this different from the revulsive murder of the Libyan dictator Muamar Gadhafi who was, assaulted, mocked and murdered by his captives after begging for clemency! It is very surprising that some of these SPLA generals have not ended up in The Hague for committing crimes against humanity. In reality the question whether John Garang should be the father of the nation, is a redundant question because this is exactly what the government has been doing over the last 6 years. That’s why Salva Kiir Mayardit unveiled the imposing statue of the late hero, during the independence celebrations; that’s why our national currency bears his picture; that’s why a university and a hospital are dedicated to his memory; that’s why schools and many other national monuments are dedicated to his name and the list goes on and on. Mr. Paul in his spirited defence pointed other deserving leaders before Dr. Garang came into the scene in 1983, such as Aggrey Jaden, and Oliver Albino. Allow me to add other hero’s like Joseph Oduho, Akot Atem, Simon Gai Tut, William Nyuon, Kerubino Kwanyin, Arok Thon, Gen. Joseph Lagu, Father Saturino Ohure who was hunted and brutally gunned down along Sudan-Uganda border by Arab agents. The gallant soldiers of the Equatoria Corps, who fired the first bullets against Arab oppressors in Torit in 1955 were rounded and executed by the jellabas. The recognition of these and many others is the issue of contention and not whether or not Dr. Garang should be the father of the nation state. The issue of Dr. Garang being a unionist or a separatist is just a distraction. As a leader his legacy will live on and what his followers and admirers have to do is to learn to live with both the good and bad aspects of his legacy. What is so difficult about that? As citizens, it is our responsibilities to point out mistakes in government policies and programmes. No one can deny the abuse of the national television as SPLM/A propaganda machine. This is wrong. SSTV should be seen to promote our cultural and historical diversities without preferential treatment. All school children from all corners of South Sudan should know their local hero’s and celebrate them to give them pride and self-esteem. The other issues of contention here are the use of the correct institutional procedures in deciding when, how and where national monuments should be erected. Did the national parliament approve of the ‘Garang statue’, the picture of John Garang on the national currency etc.? If not, why not? Who authorised approval of the funds for building of the statue and how much was it? Was the process for awarding the contract competitive and transparent? These are issues of good governance. Elhag undoubtedly has his followers. That a man like him is not in the assembly battling our case is testimony to the unfairness in the new republic. As long as he is out there, he can shout as loudly and often as he wants. Anyone can ignore the power of the new media at his own peril. But it has become fashionable to condemn some of those challenging the status quo as tribalists. On the other hand, a Dinka in the same category like the Editor of the Citizen newspaper though repeatedly terrorised by security agents, is not labelled as a tribalist. These are the political contradictions in our nascent state. It took a Kenyan to expose what have been swept under the carpet in an article which I hereby quote verbatim entitled: Who will save Government of South Sudan from wrong turn? (Published on 06/08/2011, The Standard-on-line, Nairobi, Kenya) By: Donald Kipkorir, Advocate of the High Court and in AUG. 12/2011, SSN; the author reiterated, “It takes a Nelson Mandela to transition from liberation to leadership psyche. I have the biggest trepidation that SPLA, who with tremendous respect is filled in its ranks with semi-illiterate war veterans, will plunder the resources of South Sudan…….. GOSS adopts triple ills of Africa She has adopted the triple ills of Africa, lock-stock & barrel! In less than a month after independence, GoSS is entrenching negative tribalism, grand corruption and political hubris. My friends who travel regularly to Juba tell me horror stories of the wrong turn. Take the politics. The President of GoSS is officially addressed as His Excellency Lt Gen Salva Kiir Mayardit, Supreme Commander of the Sudan People Liberation Army (SPLA) and Chairman of Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, and the Vice President is addressed mouthful as His Excellency Lt Gen Dr Rick Machiar Teny! If the long titles aren’t symptoms of political hubris, what is?.................... Tribalism and grand corruption are Siamese twins. Though mainly Nilotic and predominantly Dinka and Nuer tribes, there are more than 60 ethnic groups in South Sudan. The SPLA and the Government which is two sides of one coin is predominantly Dinka. There are growing murmurs and discontent that the Government has been hijacked by the Dinka. As always, the Government will pooh-boo these murmurs as machinations of State enemies.” Imagine if this was said by an Equatorian, hell could have broken loose. I m a not a tribalist and I love all South Sudanese people but I hate state oppression. Wrong policies of the government must be pointed out so that they can be corrected. Equally, do not feel guilty that opposing the government is betrayal of your tribe. At this moment in time, there are 16 top government officials who are implicated in theft of about 350 million US dollars of public money. If every citizen speaks up against such things, these thieves will have nowhere to hide. The millions and possibly billions that they have stolen could be repatriated to build our infrastructures, deliver services to our desperate people, and the criminals will be brought to justice. Silence means consent. If you are protecting a tribalistic government just because you are unfairly benefitting from it then it logically follows that you are a tribalist, period. The internet has given us the opportunity to exchange views and learn from each other and about our communities. Let us not use it for intimidating and hurling insults at each other. In our human subjectivity it is still possible to observe some degree of objectivity. If we are to have any civilised discourses on the internet or elsewhere, we need to desist from name calling and labelling but give each other space. Otherwise before long, we will all have our own tribal websites which will take us back to the dark ages. Let us focus on the content of what we write but not on personalities or tribal backgrounds to encourage participation from wider section of our society, including women and girls. Arrogant and Oppressive SPLM regime Does Elhag hate the Dinka or the SPLA/M, No. How many people have routinely abandoned and returned back to the SPLA/M. Just prior to the independence celebrations in July 2001, Cdr. Peter Gadet took up arms against the SPLM government, caused death of many civilians and yet he was bribed and brought back into the very organisation which he had insulted as corrupt and tribalistic. He was rewarded with a higher rank and 3 million US dollars in his pocket. There are repeated efforts to bring back the rebel commander George Athor into the SPLM/A fold. Dr. Lam Akol who had been repeatedly accused by top SPLM cadres has now been offered an olive branch, although its sincerity remains to be seen. So what is so strange about Paul not liking the SPLA/M or is it because of his ethnicity? The SPLM is a political party. Like any other political parties, citizens will like or dislike it depending on its vision, values and programmes. It is arrogant to impose the SPLM as the national party, and a blackmail to identify it with the nation of South Sudan. Humiliating our Leaders Equatorian people have witnessed their leaders being habitually humiliated and contemptuously treated and have pondered about their stakes in the national cake. The first weight of the SPLM state was used against Cdr. Patrick Zumoi, the first governor of Western Equatoria after the CPA. Governor Zumoi was put under house arrest and unceremoniously removed from his post. This was followed by the infamous house detention of Cdr. Obuto Mamur one of the gallant fighters in the SPLA. He was later, discharged without charges. In 2010, Cde Alfred Lado Gore won the election for governorship of Central Equatoria but was denied his victory, allegedly because he is anti-Dinka. But the most consistent abuse and disrespect has been demonstrated against the Anya Nya movement (1955-1972); its leaders and the Addis Ababa Agreement 1972. Prior to the independence referendum in January 2011, SPLM leaders took every opportunity, whether in rallies, in the media or in funeral gatherings to mock the Anya Aya, citing arrogantly that the CPA was not like the Addis Aba Agreement. Had anyone suggested otherwise? Didn’t young John Garang, come to the Anya-Nya headquarters in Owing-Ki- Bul to be trained by Gen Lagu who later sent him for PhD studies to the USA, when Gen Lagu discovered that the jellaba were scheming to lynch Garang in Khartoum? Didn’t Salva Kiir Mayardit as a teenager in the 60’s walk hundreds of miles on foot from Bahar el Ghazal to Owiny- Ki-Bul in Equatoria, to join the Anya-Nya? Was he discriminated or badly treated? The Anya- Nya might have achieved less than we would have wanted, but this was partly because of the hostile geo-political environment in the 60’s. This was the time when most of the neighbouring countries including Uganda, Kenya and Congo, were either still struggling for their own independence or had just become independent. Additionally, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) which gave birth to the AU, was fanatically opposed to the idea of interference in the affairs of other sovereign states. It took the abrogation of the Addis Ababa Agreement in 1983 and thereafter the repeated violation of the rights of southerners by the Islamist regimes in Khartoum, for the world to concede on applying self-determination in the evidently genuine case of Southern Sudan. The limited achievement of the Addis Ababa Agreement (1972), for the first time in the history, gave southern Sudan an autonomous regional government (1972-1983). As discussed in my last article entitled “ Holding our National Government to Account” SSN 3rd Oct 2011, the regional government could have delivered independence, just as the referendum has done, had it not been deliberately sabotaged by fellow Southerners. Time will come, when all these secrets will come out. So the Anya movement and their leaders deserve some respect. There is no point in needless comparisons of movements that took place under completely different circumstances and eras. After all isn’t it natural for leaders to do better than their predecessors, and are children not expected to do better than their fathers? The SPLM forced to side with the people The SPLM leadership was forced to change sides and stand with the majority of the Southern people to vote for separation in January 2011. To be fair, the majority of SPLA ranks and files were for separation, from the inception of Anya Nya 2 through the Nashir revolt in 1991. During Abel Alier’s reign in Juba 1972-78, separatists were routinely jailed and separation became a dirty word, to appease the Arab masters. If separatists are becoming targeted again, it won’t be a surprise. But Riek or Lam are free to choose how they would like history to remember them. True to their Machiavellian spirit, when the SPLM government realised that they may be forced to concede recognising the Anya Nya, they swiftly changed tact and promptly declared 1891 as the official beginning of our liberation struggle. The first commandment of the SPLM under Salva Kiir Mayardit, therefore states: there shall be no other father of the nation apart from Dr. John Garang and myself. Second, SPLA/M has replaced all previous movements and no reference shall be made thereof. Third, only those tribes that were the majority in the SPLA have the right to enjoy the benefits of the liberation struggle. Fourth, whether you like it or not we shall rule you, got it? Hence displacement is the hidden sin of the SPLM/A. They want to displace people from their land, history, and cultural heritage. Anya-Nya 1 and 2 leaders and all the other separatists have struggled and shed blood for this country. They legitimately deserve recognition in our national history. Without Anya –Nya 1 there would have been no Anya-Nya 2 and most certainly no SPLA/M. Before 1972, those who claim to be our born rulers, were living in Khartoum, happily eating kisra and full masri. From the time they graduate from high schools or universities, they migrate to Khartoum and never step again into their ancestral villages until death do them part. The heroic men of the Equatoria Corps, might not have won the battle but they inspired the rest of the South and laid the foundation for our liberation. Otherwise, today we would be happily living in Arabised Sudan wearing thobes and jellabias and relishing in bukhur and henna! It would have been impossible to help other African Sudanese to liberate themselves. These brave men didn’t have sophisticated weapons or state sponsorship of a guerrilla movement in contrast to the SPLA/M. The state support of both Col Miriam Mengistu the then Ethiopian leader, and Col. Muammar Gadhafi, Libya’s recently deceased leader, gave Dr. Garang, the opportunity to prevail over the rival Anya-Nya 2 leaders. Although John Garang will be blamed for most of the mismanagement in the SPLA/M war, just as he will be praised for its many achievements, he cannot really be blamed for the poor implementation of the CPA. Most importantly, he cannot be blamed for the rampant corruption in the government of the republic of South Sudan. He cannot also be blamed for the insecurity, under development, lack of service delivery and poor community relations which have now gripped the nation. Other people have taken charge of ruling this country and they had choices to do right or wrong and but choose the latter. The other people who are stirring up bad blood are those who believe by idolising Dr. John Garang and demonising other southern leaders, they alone stand to benefit from the name of the late. The only people who are entitled to gaining from the name of late Garang are his immediate family. It is high time all the other people stop using his name for selfish personal or group gains. All our 2.5 million dead were made of flesh and blood. We humbly salute them and pray the Almighty to rest their souls, eternally in peace. We now need to focus on solving our problems: the problems of the living here and now; the problem of leadership crisis in RSS. Dr John Garang de Mabior and those who have gone ahead have won the battle, but the war is not over yet. We still have to fight the war against illiteracy, diseases, poverty and underdevelopment. We have to fight the political diseases that could render this country, a failed state. We have to fight the potentially deadly enemy lurking in our midst: the enemy of graft and its twin arms of tribalism and nepotism. These are the real enemies we have to confront today, to establish a viable nation out the rubbles of tribocracy. This is the responsibility of all the 64 Southern tribes and the key to this is effective visionary leadership - leadership whose main function will not be to create a nation of masters and slaves or lord it over others - but leadership that is fit for the purpose of leading South Sudan in the 21st century. By Joana Adams, Juba, RSS. 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 "South Sudan Info - The Kob" 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/SouthSudanKob?hl=en.
