Tribalism is in trouble
Article
Comments (19)
email Email
print Print
pdfSave
separation
increase
decrease
separation
separation
facebook
myspace
twitter
buzzyahoo
By Zechariah Manyok Biar
July 12, 2013 - When South Sudanese single out something and fight
against it, they do it with absolute commitment. The fight against the
unity of Sudan in 2011 is one of these examples. South Sudanese
singled out the word “unity” in 2011 and demonized it until everybody
inside the country would feel ashamed to mention the word in public.
Politicians became careful on how they would choose their terms when
talking about Referendum.
Now Referendum is over and South Sudan is two years old as an
independent state. South Sudanese have decided to glorify the word
“unity” again. They know that their hard earned separation could
collapse if the word unity which was thrown away in 2011 does not join
it. It is because of this desire for rebaptism of unity as important
that tribalism is now in trouble.
Towards the celebration of the second anniversary for the independence
of South Sudan, for example, I had been hearing the listeners calling
in to Radio Miraya in the morning and demonized tribalism the way they
did to unity before the Referendum in 2011.
People from other countries are also joining South Sudanese in the
fight against tribalism. President Museveni of Uganda, for example,
warned against tribalism when he gave a speech as the Chief Guest in
Juba during the celebration of the second anniversary of South Sudan’s
independence on July 9, 2013.
I would not agree with President Museveni, however, if his warning
implied that the current struggle within the SPLM party is tribalism.
I would only agree with him if he meant that politics should not be
tribalized. Most of us would agree that tribalized politics must be
condemned in any true democracy. But normal democratic contests should
not be seen as a sign of weakness. Weakness in democracy is the
opposite of what is going on within the SPLM party now.
Having said the above, I would clarify that tribalism which South
Sudanese are now against is not individual tribal membership. We know
that tribal membership is not a bad thing. It is part of our
individual identity. The tribalism that South Sudanese are against is
the distorted tribal identity. In other word, they are against the use
of tribal identity for selfish reasons.
Many a time, both politicians and ordinary citizens take their tribal
identity as a means for achieving their selfish agenda. This was why
you saw people who rebelled after the 2010 elections like David Yau
Yau and the Late George Athor turning to their tribes for support.
They gave all reasons they could to show their people that they lost
elections because they belonged to that particular tribe, a connection
that does not make sense. Citizens also take tribal affiliation as a
matter of pride and security. That is why they are easily misled.
We can agree that tribal identity is a matter of pride to anybody, but
it does not guarantee one’s security. People who hate other tribe
members would feel insecure every time they find themselves in other
tribes. Their wrong beliefs would make them think that members from
other tribes hate people from tribes not their own.
Feeling of real security and happiness are realized when one regards
him/herself as a true friend to people from other tribes. It is this
feeling that makes people love their workplaces were workers are from
different communities. Any member of the Red Army who was in Panyido
in the 1980s would understand what I am talking about here.
When we went to Panyido in 1987, we first lived in what was referred
to as Alamaat (chiefdoms). We regarded such affiliation as the only
way to be happy and secure. But the opposite was true. Many children
died because life in Alamaat was miserable
.
Life got better in Panyido when the current Inspector General of
Police General Pieng Deng, who was Captain at the time, was assigned
to Panyido as the Camp Manager. The then Captain Pieng decided that
mixing us up would solve problems we were in. We did not think mixing
us up was a good idea. We had already formulated our perceptions of
other communities. Children from Bor, on the one hand, believed that
children from part of Bahr el Ghazal were bad people because they
“ate” pythons. Children from part of Bahr el Ghazal, on the other
hand, believed that children from Agaar and Bor were “dirty” people
because they were not circumcised. We wrote bad songs against one
another on these perceptions. Tensions were often high among these
communities.
Ironically, happiness was not realized within each community. There
were tensions between clans. Big boys within one clan would also
mistreat small boys, making them think about their parents they left
back at home as only sources of happiness and security. They became
terribly homesick because they could not feel cared for. That was the
reason for high rate of death.
Yet, our wrong perceptions of other tribes made us still believe that
the situation we were in could be worst if we were mixed up. Unlike
us, Captain Pieng knew our situation would be better in mixed-up
groups. That was why he pressed on with his plan even though we booed
and deserted him twice in general parade after he mentioned his plan
to mix us up.
The mixing-up plan was implemented in stages. Group one to four were
selected from different communities and mixed up. Those who were first
selected by the big boys who were leaders in Alamaat were the children
they regarded as troublemakers. When those supposed troublemakers went
to their mixed-up groups, their living conditions changed immediately
for the best. They became better than those of us who were still
staying in Alamaat. We then craved for mixing up.
Within some months, general mixing up was done. We immediately found
that children from other communities were good people. Happiness
increased and death reduced. We realized that caring for one another
in mixed members of different tribes was better than what we had
experienced in Alamaat. We found out that friends from other tribes
were often willing to give up their own lives to care for you when you
were sick. They could fear that you would pass your own sickness to
them. They would care for you like or even better than your own
brother.
It is the above reality that South Sudanese are now beginning to
realize. They want a country where one would care for a member of a
different tribe as a brother or a sister. They want a country where
support of a political contestant will be based on what he or she can
do for the whole nation, not one tribe. South Sudanese have now
understood that a member of one’s tribe who is in top leadership
position will not make the condition of your tribe any better than
that of those who do not have any member in higher positions. They
have realized that those who use tribal identity in politics use it
for selfish reason. That is why tribalism is now in trouble.
Because of this change in focus, I believe the misuse of tribal
identity will soon die and unity that was thrown away during the
Referendum will be welcomed back home like the Prodigal Son.
Politicians who use tribal identity for selfish reasons will soon
start to be ashamed to use it in the same way they were ashamed to
mention the word unity during the Referendum.
Zechariah Manyok Biar 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].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SouthSudanKob/CAJb14ors9nj2HX9bEfdSQ-TNw7NpCsgf2xo%2B-wM2NoWRO%2BnjFQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
