SPLM’s 3rd national convention, will democracy be on hold yet again? .
Top figure of the South Sudan’s ruling party, SPLM. Photo credit: splmtoday.com
.
By Deng Vanang
March 21, 2013 (SSNA) -- As the SPLM readies its self for its national
convention, many columnists and political observers are falling over
one another in weighing in their invaluable opinions as to what shall
be in the store a head of the D-day. The ruling party is gearing up
for its third national convention in two months time, probably in May.
It is an occasion that comes once within every span of five years.
This convention is exceptionally historic in a number of ways. It is
first of its kind to be convened by the ruling party in an already
independent South Sudan. It also comes in the wake of an acrimonious
second gathering that nearly flunched semi-autonomous Southern Sudan
into another around of civil war five years ago. That was May, 2008 to
be precise. If the acrimony wasn’t foiled, it could have been
Southern Sudan rising up against itself than the usual North it always
scapegoats for its perennial woes. Not over the liberation for freedom
but over who should get in the driving seat to wield the reins of the
most coveted powers of the ruling party, SPLM. Fortunately enough
wisdom prevailed to reprieve the war weary Southern Sudanese from the
cliff of yet another devastation too soon. Then, the good gesture
provided the opportunity of achieving long cherished future of an
independent state that could have been adjourned if not jeopardized
completely. Such necessary intervention pulled it back from the brink
of uncertainty.
With South Sudan becoming sovereign state since 2011, the second
mission is geared towards building itself in what is called second
liberation era after many centuries of colonial rule under three
different colonialists. One being that of Turks followed by
Anglo-Egyptian condominium and the recently concluded Arabs’ one. Each
of these colonial strains equally caused untold destruction of its own
kind both in human and material terms to South Sudanese. This second
liberation like anywhere in the world is championed through legally
established institutions than through crude firepower. That is the
civil society groups and registered political parties. In the latter
individual citizens and social groups acquire membership in order to
air their own views on how best the country can be run. In the process
of building non-existing state infrastructures, law and order,
democracy is certainly the force driving the second liberation through
its distinct element called participatory democracy. This democratic
concept requires the involvement of all citizens as mobilized and
sensitized by civil society institutions and fourth state {media} to
have a say on the affairs of their own political parties and state.
Each party has its ideology and political programs imbedded in
principles of fundamental freedom in its all kinds, fairness, justice
and equal opportunities for all the citizens of the state. Then, the
party goes out along the way to sell its ideology and political
programs to the perceived electorate in periodically competitive
elections. The party or coalition of parties whose programs appeal to
the majority of electorate wins the elections and secures itself the
golden opportunity to serve the whole country. That is irrespective of
who is in what party while other parties become the respected minority
with the constitutional mandate to constructively criticize the
programs of the party at the helm until the next elections after the
elapse of five years term in case of South Sudan. That is only if the
party in power is not removed through a vote of no confidence by
two-third majority members of National Assembly to trigger an early
election.
Liberal democracy
However, what my opinion piece focuses on is liberal democracy whose
practice drives some individual elements nuts at its mere mention.
Here the trouble is not with the term democracy but individuals who
accustomed themselves to dictatorial management of things. They lack
practicing democracy although they are well versed with its
theoretical part and only fond of using word democracy as a slogan to
pacify restless local citizens into accepting their shaky legitimacy.
Gullible western donors who tie economic aid to the promotion of any
stuff feebly sounding democratic also fall prey to their empty
rhetoric. When the reality of practicing democracy dawns on them, they
recoil and come up with all sorts of different definitions they can
lay their quivering lips on. This is done all in a belated attempt to
distort the true meaning of democracy simply to keep themselves afloat
on the corridors of power. The closest straws at which they clutch in
desperate struggle to remain politically relevant are terminologies
like consensus or guided democracy as the chosen method through which
leadership can change hands within the party. Guided democracy is when
interested individuals or parties from certain categorized groups are
allowed to safely compete for certain positions allocated to them.
Affirmative action such as 25% given to South Sudanese women is one of
the best examples of guided democracy. Or in the ethnically and
religiously divided countries like Rwanda and Lebanon respectively
government portfolios are allocated proportionally according to the
percentages garnered by competing parties after the general elections.
The backlash is that this mode inhibits much needed managerial
effectiveness and efficiency because certain groups must be
apportioned their shares anyway whether they are capable of delivering
or not. The same democratic mode adversely affects social integration
and national cohesion between distinct groups with strained relations
in the organization or the country at large with likely future
fallouts. On the contrary, consensus has something to do with
boardroom sharing out of most strategic positions between a few but
invincible power elites to avoid invertible physical and ideological
acrimonies. The losers in this convoluted democratic arrangement are
the ordinary members with no with withal to enter the board room where
the spoils are shared, which in all fairness disfranchicizes them.
Retrogressive forces
This certainly leads to the pertinent question given our present
political state of affairs as South Sudanese. Why would some people
who pride themselves as intellectuals at this modernizing age in South
Sudan allow themselves to be swept under feet by totalitarian forces
of retrogression? Democracy has never been a stranger visiting South
Sudan. It is as old as the mother land South Sudan if not newly
sovereign South Sudan. To justify this sticking point a little
further, we used to have chiefly elections in villages without any
incidents of violence. In fact no community elders from Upper Nile had
ever gone to Bhar-elgazal and Equatoria and vice versa to settle cases
as a result of election disputes. During the era of regional
government numerous democratic elections were held to the envy of the
north when educated percentage of our population and exposure of our
people to the outside world civic behaviors were closest to nil. Our
democracy was only tainted by Ethiopians when they decided to prefer
Dr. John Garang to his Uncle Akwot Atem as the democratic choice of
our people at Itang refugee camp. It is this Ethiopians uninvited
intervention that has lived to disorganize our established tradition
of democracy and polarize South Sudanese along SPLM/A - Anyanya Two
lines, followed by five years inter-factional destructive armed
conflict. It’s the same SPLM/A – Anya-nya two pestering divide that
caused 1991 split in the former for about twelve years and
subsequently went down to cause an immense loss of lives and
unnecessary delay of independence. Another failed attempt to restore
democracy we can talk of was 2008 SPLM‘s second national convention
when the unionists, especially northerners in collusion with a few
Southerners in Presidential court, tried to rig out the separatists
seen as the major threat to their ambitions in the party. Two factions
had the marriage of convenience that intertwined them. Northerners
wanted to kill the surging independence spirit in the South in the run
up to referendum while kiir’s handlers desperately wanted to railroad
any bad omen {Machar} that would prevent their man from continuing as
the President once and for all. There and then, democracy had to be
deliberately put on hold due to overriding public interest.
This postponement of democratic process went on to affect the
leadership structure in the SPLM when Kiir adamantly refused to
compete with President Omar Al-bashir for Sudan Presidency as his
equal in the rival National Congress Party, NCP during 2010 general
elections. Instead he decided to vie for junior position of President
of an autonomous Southern Sudan meant for the party’s Deputies to the
Chairman. In this case, Dr. Riek Machar and Wani Igga as the SPLM’s
constitution might implicitly stipulate. The idea of putting democracy
on hold at both party and national levels at the time was done as the
necessary but short term measure to deal with the emergency of gaining
independence first. But the national interest at the time could not
currently sustain the created precedence of indefinitely postponing
democratic exercise to salvage the vested interests of a few under the
pretext that losing communities would resort to violence. In spite of
that glaring fact, masters of crises are now on a look out for more
crises in four corners of the world they can gather, bring and present
to SPLM delegates as to why open democratic elections do not augur
well for SPLM members and by extension the South Sudanese. The trick
as callous as it appears is to falsely paint democracy as an alien
political concept to South Sudanese society just to defend one man’s
job under siege. While the contrast is true that our people cherish
fairness which is the bedrock of democracy since time immemorial. Even
still, our people are war weary which is why current South Sudan
rebels’ grievances cannot thrive on violence as there are hardly
people available to join the rebellious forces and swell their ranks
and piles for a full scale civil war. This is why they are to endure
harrowing eight years of SPLM’s kleptocracy with all its accompanying
negatives of ethnic chauvinism and subsequent hatred widespread across
South Sudanese social fabric never before witnessed in such a massive
scale in the history of this country. Those numerated vices have lived
to snatch away the future of South Sudanese children but unwaveringly
our people decided to remain straight path in their quest for a
peaceful change of regime some day. And therefore, the problem with
democracy in South Sudan currently is not that our people are
intolerant to democratic norms. Truth of the matter is rather the
burning greed and personal ego with which most South Sudanese leaders
pursue public offices not to serve people per se like in the past but
to enrich themselves, extended families and clans. The crude urge to
remain in public offices at all costs has even gone to an extent of
one’s imagination of a loss at the ballot is becoming a zero sum game
equated with death. That is the farthest this self destructive selfish
attitude has gone which a few political elites have developed towards
holding public offices.
Attitudinal change
To change this negative state of mind, internal democracy in the
parties has to be enforced as it is no longer one party’s internal
matter. For it is what will pave the way for a wholesale democracy
nationwide through competitive elections. It is the failure to rein in
undemocratic behaviors in the parties that always spill over into
national elections. To avoid it, this calls for an inclusion of
Anti-corruption Commission, National Election Commission, NEC and
Judiciary that are truly impartial, neutral and independent. To
cleanse of South Sudan of dirty politics, thieves who have stolen
public money and criminals wanting to push up careers with flesh and
blood to power must be depoliticized and put permanently in retirement
by Anti-corruption Commission. For it totally beats common sense a
stable, prosperous country we hope for can be brought about by thieves
and criminals and neither can they sustain it if it ever exists. NEC’s
mandate is to be expanded to preside over free and fair internal party
elections while judiciary shall adjudicate post election cases as the
result of mal-practices. Resultantly, the three watchdog institutions
shall not only prevent mushrooming of political parties that intend to
polarize the country along regional and ethnic enclaves due to flawed
internal party elections but also build a more mature and viable
culture of democracy that works to stabilize body politics, crackdown
on an endemic corruption and encourage economic growth through both
local and foreign direct investments. In its quest for a truly
democratic South Sudan, NEC should make noisy voting by either
acclimation or show of hands a thing of the past as it is archaic and
equally old fashioned. For this method of electing leaders favors a
top cream of them, especially the incumbent whose seemingly staying
powers and scanning eyes during selection intimidate vulnerable
voters, the largest voting block, with so much to loss if he/she
victoriously returns to the helm. This backward voting method also
creates personal enmity in the party between losers and voters who
help the winners win with the likely eventual fallout in the
organization in more foreseeable future.
While on the contrary, secret voting signifies genuine democracy at
work. Since the free will of the voters is not curtailed by the
burgeoning powers of the incumbents and neither is it divisive for
losers may not know their best of friends who cross over to vote in
their competitors. It eventually pacifies and unifies ranks and piles
behind both the winners and losers in the party during the post
election period. It teaches the political culture of tolerance to the
defeated which can easily be replicated at the national elections. For
what we practice inside can easily be reflected on the outside. We
speak out what we conceive first. Our actions don’t lie for they only
ventilate what is truly hidden at the bottom of our hearts and reverse
can’t be any different from the truth. Competitive democracy
undoubtedly builds the nation via competing healthy ideas and
motivates leaders, who rule due to the free will of the populace, to
work the hardest for they know public wrath awaits them for anything
less. But those who muscle their way to power never get serious about
better performance since they only know too well their dictatorial
tendencies of cowing hapless electorate into electing them shall come
to bear whenever fresh elections beckon again. Such laizesfaire
attitude puts them at liberty to either perform better or do so poorly
since whatever shall be the end result is still rewarding to them in
one way or another.
Democracy additionally is not only about tolerating views critical of
oneself. It as well means embracing defeat humbly and winning
magnanimously. Accepting defeat fairly reflects a sort of virtue in
oneself. It shows strong character in someone who does so against
pride and egocentrism. Anyone who overcomes defeat is well respected
more than anybody who always wins at the expense of moral values that
hold society together in peace and harmony. Thus, accepting defeat is
the hallmark that distinguishes those who stand up for others in
response to national call and the chest thumping lots who crave for
only and only themselves with destructive mentality of superiority
complex, coupled with false belief that they always deserve the right
to win. No patriotism or love for the nation stands between them and
tenacious self-pursuit for public of office. For it is either them or
all hell breaks loose, they mindlessly brag.
SPLM inside politics
This mindless bragging is not confined in just some political parties.
It manifests itself in SPLM in the most unorthodox manner. Which is
why some members in the SPLM who seem to own the party could even
afford to brag the loudest that anyone who didn’t consistently remain
in the SPLM/A cannot dream of becoming the Chairperson or any other
glamorous post. It is a hostile statement directed at those who
defected from the main stream SPLM/A in 1991 to form SPLM/A Nasir
faction. Introspect one cannot miss to wonder what became of
reconciliation in 2002 that brought together once more Dr. John Garang
on the one hand and on the other, Dr. Riek Machar and Dr. Lam Akol who
long foresaw the anomaly and flanged out of what he once prophetically
dubbed the fast sinking chip to form the official opposition party,
SPLM-DC. When genuine reconciliation dictates the past is put behind
and a new page is turned over. The same malicious view from the so
called SPLM’s chest thumping owners connotes another point of
contention against any basic party principle that SPLM members don’t
share equal rights. New members in the party have to stay mum for a
certain number of years before becoming something, reducing the party
old membership to ridiculous status of just capturing leadership queue
as the much needed performance takes a dive into the back seat. In
this regimented social stratum, new and probably better performing
members have no chance to ascend the heights of leadership ladder and
worst of all, they are unbothered to see the futility of waiting in
the party which can perish in any event of a disastrous loss at just
one election. Another fallacy usually banded about is an idea that the
SPLM first Deputy Chairman, Dr. Machar or anybody else cannot contest
against his/her boss, Chairman Kiir and anybody eyeing his position
should wait in the wings for the year 2020. When in fact democracy is
conceived to be the leveled playing field in which any registered
member in a given organization can vie for a post of their choice
notwithstanding they can win or lose. Without a ting of logic some
elements in Kiir’s inner circle went further in saying Machar can only
contest for party Chairmanship if only accorded the blessing to do so
by Kiir – implicitly making the latter the sole owner of the party
with divine right of predestination to decide who should contest for
what post. Those who make series of heart renting appeals to Machar to
postpone his Presidential ambitions for the year 2020 cannot even be
trusted given their already cunning statements. Come the year 2020,
they may most likely come up with yet another cock and bull story of
age limit to be enshrined in the constitution. That is barring Machar
and unwanted others citing their old age to ascend to Presidency. The
above mentioned unjust rules, to say the least, have indeed conspired
to transform SPLM into George Orwell’s sorts of animals farm where
some members are more equal than others. And what should have been the
real issue worthy of debate over the fate of Kiir and Machar is
fallaciously submerged under the sentimental tribal feelings. That is
being the evaluation of Kiir’s eight years Presidential tenure on
whether he performed well or poorly and Machar being put to test on
the other to prove his Presidential ambitions on why he thinks he is
the change the long suffering South Sudanese have been waiting for.
Deng Vanang is a Journalist and member of an official opposition
SPLM-DC’s National Executive Committee, NEC and can be reached at:
[email protected]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"South Sudan Info - The Kob" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
