South Sudan national dialogue: will it succeed?
Article
Comments (2)
email Email
print Print
pdfSave
separation
increase
decrease
separation
separation
By Daniel Zingifuaboro, Clement Mbugoniwia and Simon Ngbidigi
The Republic of South Sudan was born on 9th July 2011, after a
successful referendum in which South Sudanese of all walk of lives
voted overwhelmingly to separate from the Sudan. By voting in favour
of independence, South Sudanese thought they were out of the woods,
having fought bitter wars for autonomy from the Sudan since time
immemorial. The first celebrations of independence on the 9th of July
2011, was marked with jubilation on the streets and villages of South
Sudan. However, that happiness was short-lived as the young nation was
towed into what now becomes civil war planned and executed by its own
leaders on 15 December 2013.
Just one year after the CPA, a majority of South Sudanese started to
feel that there was much that was not right about what was happening
or not happening in the young nation. Clearly, there was no vision for
nation-building and social cohesion. There was no political will to
initiate reconciliation and healing after the hard fought war and
human rights abuses during the 21-year civil war between Sudan
Government and the SPLM/A. People were being told to be patient until
after the referendum, which the Government thought was a priority by
then. After the referendum, nothing happened. The people of Equatoria,
comprising of the three States of Equatoria (Central Equatoria State;
Eastern Equatoria State and Western Equatoria State) staged three
conferences and recommended to Salva Kiir’s Government issues to do
with reforming system of government; Constitution; overhaul of all
public institutions including the security sector and diplomatic
missions; stop looting of public resources, dominance of power by one
ethnic group; social, human and economic developments, among others.
All these warnings fell on the deaf ears of President Salva Kiir, who
had a different agenda which is clearly manifested through a tribal
council of elders known as Jieng Council of Elders (JCE).
Besides, Salva Kiir and Dr Riak Machar had very difficult, strained
and uneasy political relationship both in government and within the
ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM). Furthermore, there
are factional political struggles for power within SPLM which became
rife and contributed to the December 2013 crisis, as South Sudan
approached its first general elections after independence, which were
scheduled for 2015. Dr Machar made it clear that he wanted to contest
the leadership of the ruling SPLM Party, a declaration that triggered
the December 2013, crisis.
The crisis which was seen from outset as a political struggle for
power soon descended into an armed struggle between two tribes: Dinka
(Salva Kiir’s ethnic group) and Nuer (Machar’s ethnic group) and
thereafter the whole 64 tribes of South Sudan is involved.
The Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) mediated the
conflict and brokered the Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in
South Sudan (ARCSS) in August 2015, which subsequently resulted in the
formation of Transitional Government of National Unity (TGoNU) in
April 2016. With the signing of ARCSS, South Sudanese were hopeful
once again that, peace has finally returned to their impoverished
nation. The dream and hope of peace fell apart when the same
government of Salva Kiir plotted to assassinate his peace partner, Dr
Machar. Taban Deng Gai, now First Vice President, succumbed to JCE
stiff pressure and accepted to oust his boss, Dr Riak Machar.
President Kiir returned South Sudan back to war and continue to lie to
the world that there is peace in South Sudan.
It is important to underline that, the people of South Sudan, the
international community and indeed the IGAD should never overlook that
President Kiir was very reluctant to sign the ARCSS but did so with
reservations amid stiff pressure from the international community to
impose sanctions.1 Salva Kiir stated: “With all those reservations
that we have, we will sign this [ARCSS] document…some features of the
document are not in the interest of just and lasting peace. We had
only one of the two options, the option of an imposed peace or the
option of a continued war”.2
Furthermore, Salva Kiir, in his public statement to the nation on 15
September 2015, promised commitment of the government to the faithful
implementation of ARCSS. But commented to the contrary that the “IGAD
prescribed ARCSS is the most divisive and unprecedented peace deal
ever seen in the history of our country and the African continent at
large. This agreement has also attacked the sovereignty of our
country.3
We are sure Salva Kiir’s statement sent early warning signals to the
international community, IGAD and other stakeholders as to whether he
(Salva Kiir) would commit to the full implementation of ARCSS. It is
to be noted that the reservations held by Kiir have largely been
ignored by IGAD, knowing that the reservations themselves have the
potential to erode Salva Kiir’s political will and ownership of the
ARCSS. Furthermore, the reservations do not promote inclusivity and
popular ownership of the ARCSS in order to ensure effective
implementation.
Therefore, Salva Kiir quickly, and upon return of his peace partner to
Juba unilaterally abrogated the ARCSS, by creating 28 states contrary
to the 10 states agreed upon and went on to define and implement the
ARCSS in his own terms. On the other end, the same Salva Kiir and his
JCE colluded with Taban Deng Gai, who was also hungry for power,
divided the SPLM/A (IO). At first, IGAD was of the opinion that the
ARCISS has been violated but when Secretary of State, Hon. John Kerry
visited Nairobi and Addis Ababa in August/September 2016, indicating
that the ARCSS had not been violated. Consequently, IGAD abrogated
their initial position in favour of the US position. This gave the
Kiir government boost or licence to commit atrocities with impunity.
Since then, fighting has spread throughout the country resulting in
the catastrophic humanitarian situation. Millions of people have been
killed and millions of others have taken refuge in neighbouring
countries and in the UN Protection of Civilians Centres (POCs).
Thousands of innocent civilians remained in secret detention
facilities across the country.
On the basis of the above background comes the national dialogue,
which was purported and inaugurated in Juba on the 12th of May 2017 by
President Salva Kiir. We wonder If Salva Kiir who produced 16
reservations to the ARCSS, defined and implement ARCSS in his own
terms; will Salva Kiir’s selective and one-sided national dialogue
bring peace to the suffering people of South Sudan?
In this article, we will argue that though there is no
one-side-fits-all approach, but for any national dialogue to succeed,
it must be inclusive; transparent; with a credible convener(s); the
agenda must address the root causes of South Sudan conflict(s); clear
mandate, structure, rules and procedures; and an agreed mechanism for
implementation of outcomes. Second, unless Salva Kiir takes the people
of South Sudan to the drawing board by agreeing to renew the peace
process and alongside run the process of national dialogue, the
inaugurated national dialogue is just a political spin designed to
derail the thwarted peace agreement and bestow legitimacy on Salva
Kiir and his cronies to continue with their hidden agenda.
Defining the National Dialogue
Let us begin with some definitions. While there is no internationally
agreed definition, the national dialogue is being continuously used to
describe “heterogeneous set of processes”4 for resolving conflicts and
for political transformation. It provides opportunity to citizens to
have meaningful conversations about the root causes of conflict and
ways to holistically address these issues.5
National Dialogue “presents a valid way to overcome internal rifts and
to rebuild relationships, to ideally reach new social contract between
the various groups in the conflict”.6 It is a critical tool for
preventing violent conflicts and for managing political crisis and
transitions. 7 National dialogues are nationally owned processes aimed
at generating consensus among a broad range of national stakeholders
in times of deep political crisis, in post-war situations or during
far- reaching political transitions.8
These definitions definitely reflect the situation in and indicate
that South Sudan is badly in need of a national dialogue. Having just
come out of the war with Sudan, the country did not build or
strengthen institutions that support an independent democratic state;
defined national identity; making nation-building and social cohesion
a priority rather than making it very difficult to achieve. There is
massive corruption and mismanagement of national power and resources.
The Salva kiir leadership have engaged in a very high level of
tribalism and nepotism to the extent that the government have formed
or supports an unconstitutional institution, which foster the interest
of a tribal elite to control power and resources at the expense of
others. Salva Kiir’s government has created civil crisis and famine.
Thousands of our people have died and hundreds are dying daily. Our
roads are closed and our streets and villages deserted, bombarded and
burnt down to ashes. Our economy has collapsed. We cannot afford to
pay our liabilities. Prices of commodities have skyrocketed. While all
these are taking place, the government of Salva Kiir can afford to
stockpile weapons including chemical armaments to destroy more lives
and livelihoods; instead of purchasing food for our dying
famine-affected people. Our hospitals have no medicines and personnel.
There is no meaningful education, besides our young people, are being
trained as militias to fight themselves. Our women and girls are being
raped and killed by the same government forces meant to protect them.
Human rights abuses are on the rampant. There is massive
extra-judicial killings and disappearances. The rule of law has
collapsed paving ways for acts of revenge and impunity. There is no
freedom of speech and association. The media is heavily controlled to
achieve the interest of the tribal ruling elites. Our people are
living in fear of apprehension and persecution. The government no
longer supports democratic principles. We believe that these are the
same reasons that made President Kiir takes arms against the Sudan
Government. Thus, it is beyond comprehension that the same Salva Kiir
can apply same colonial strategies he fought against to rule his own
people that he fought to liberate from the impoverished situation.
On the initiative of national dialogue, we appreciate the effort of
President Kiir. South Sudan truly needs a national dialogue to heal
the wounds in hearts and in our society and move on. We would like to
underscore that, while the concept of holding a national dialogue is a
noble idea, it is doubtful whether President Kiir is doing this in
good faith or he is trying to keep his grip on power, because there is
a risk when leaders misuse national dialogue seeking to consolidate
their grip on power.9Although it is not bad idea to control power on
the basis of ideology and democratic principles, what must not be
condoned is when a regime control power in order to advance a narrow
tribal interest(s).
Can the national dialogue in its current form succeed?
We will now examine and provide some answers to these questions. As
already mentioned above, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to
national dialogues, but there are necessary conditions and processes
for a successful national dialogue. We will examine whether the
current South Sudan national dialogue meets these conditions.
Phase One: Preparatory
Preparatory phase is about inclusivity. It is about national dialogue
mandate that emerges from a consensus among the main stakeholders.10
Inclusive
First and foremost, national dialogue must be inclusive. It must bring
together a “broad set of stakeholders for a deliberative process”. All
key interest groups must be invited including but not limited to civil
society, political parties/elites, opposition groups (armed and
unarmed), traditional authorities, women, youth, religious groups,
disabled people, refugees, Internal Displace People (IDP), business
elites etc. this will ensure maximising the potential of the national
dialogue to address the real drivers of South Sudan conflict. It is
anticipated that before the process starts, there must be preparatory
phase, setting proper foundation for a genuine national dialogue,
which must be inclusive, transparent and consultative.12Any national
dialogue mandate should emerge from a consensus among the main
stakeholders to ensure that all participants, even those on the
fringes agree to the mandate.13 Besides, an initial decision must be
made on the shape and structure of the national dialogue; particularly
who is invited to participate plus a preparatory committee that is
inclusive of all major groups must undertake these preparations
carefully and transparently.14
Sadly, we have examined the current South Sudan national dialogue and
have serious doubts whether it meets the inclusivity principle. Let us
give it the benefit of the doubt and agree in principle that we do
have a preparatory committee considering that President Salva Kiir may
claim that the committee he inaugurated on 12 May 2017 is a
preparatory committee. The question, which is still, unanswered is
whether the participants represent a broad range of stakeholders who
have a stake in the issues affecting South Sudan. Having seen the list
of the participant, their regions and affiliations, it is evidence
that the list of the steering committee and indeed the participants is
dominated by about 70 percent of the usual tribal elites, who consider
South Sudan to be their own property, and so it belongs to them and
they can decide what to do with it. Second, there is no evidence to
suggest, otherwise that the stakeholders were consulted, invited and a
pre-negotiation has been undertaken to define the scope of the
mandate. Third, there is also no evidence to suggest the process is
transparent. There is clear evidence of exclusion to the extent that
President Kiir has publicly denounced the participation of SPLM/A (IO)
led by Dr Riak Machar Teny, on condition that he/SPLM/A (IO) must
first renounce violence, although he himself (Salva Kiir) and the JCE
have not quit violence.
It is worth mentioning that there is also no evidence to suggest that
President Kiir consulted the international community and regional
bodies. While national dialogue must be nationally owned to be
successful, it is equally paramount to consult international and
regional bodies who may play roles including and not limited to
funder, observer, provider of technical and expert support,
facilitator, monitor and verifier. Excluding these international
actors is not wisdom as far as their interests are concerned. However,
we do assume perhaps that President Museveni might have been consulted
as evident by his presence at the inauguration on 12 May 2017.
Phase Two: Process
The second phase is the “process phase” 15. This phase involves
setting the agenda; finding a charismatic convener(s); establishing
principles; developing decision-making modalities; selecting
participants; ensuring public consultation and outreach; and ensuring
effective and efficient support structures. This phase is critical but
dependent on the success of the preparatory phase.
Setting the Agenda
Setting an agenda for national dialogue is paramount and any national
dialogue initiative must address the root causes of South Sudan crisis
and it must seek to reach an agreement on key issues facing the
country. It takes months or even years of pre-negotiation or
consultation to identify and agree on these issues. The question again
is asked, have the major stakeholders reached an agreement on the key
issues facing South Sudan? If as presumed, the answer is no, how shall
the national dialogue be successful if the major opposition groups are
not consulted or allowed to participate in the initial process? Will
the current committee pre-negotiate or consult to identify and agree
on the root causes of South Sudan conflict? If yes, but the current
committee is not representative of the various stakeholders of the
conflict, therefore, how can this be possible? Unless there is a
sudden change in President Kiir’s approach, there is hardly any hope
for these questions to be answered in the affirmative, because,
history tells us that President Kiir has never had any political will
to transform South Sudan for all South Sudanese. So, the issues of
inclusivity of the current preparatory committee may render its agenda
not acceptable by stakeholders who have not been invited to
participate in the preparatory committee.
Transparency and Public Participation
For the national dialogue to gain legitimacy, there must be sufficient
opportunities for the public to remain informed about and feed into
the national dialogue.16 This means that the broader population must
be included in the dialogue by creating local dialogue procedures,
public consultations, regular outreach, and wider coverage via media
outlets. Delegates must be mandated to hold consultative meetings with
their groups and capacity building must be provided to the committee
members to enable them to analyse information collected via
consultations.
Now, imagine the current situation in South Sudan where half of the
populations are either displaced or forced into exile as refugees and
thousands more held in secret detentions centres across the country.
How will the public be efficiently and effectively informed on the
national dialogue? The already depleted public infrastructure has
collapsed, the roads are not passable and airways are increasingly
becoming difficult, scarce and unaffordable. So the movement of people
and goods across the country have become impassable. People have
vacated their towns and villages due to increasing insecurity. Those
in the country, live in fear of being killed, apprehension and
persecution, with no freedom of speech and association. Many media
outlets have closed or forced to close by the government, leaving only
those affiliated with the government. Journalists and civil society
activists have been targeted and killed. Many South Sudanese no longer
have faith in the SPLM government of Salva Kiir to protect them. There
are doubts whether the international community that has not been
involved in the national dialogue would provide support for the
success of the national dialogue for fear that they may not return on
their investment. As indicated above, the majority of South Sudanese
including Salva Kiir’s ethnic group have lost confidence in his
leadership and therefore, Salva Kiir’s government has no legitimacy,
credibility and he is unwilling to change the status quo. The
legitimacy of his government expired since July 2015, coupled with the
fact that there has never been any election held under the banner of
an independent South Sudan. Furthermore, any leaders who turn guns
against his own people cannot claim legitimacy because legitimacy
comes from the very people who are being killed in cold blood or
forced into the protection of civilians camps run by UN and into exile
as refugees. All these and others do not create a conducive
environment for holding a national dialogue.
Credible Convener
To ensure the participation of a wide variety of stakeholders, the
credibility of the convener is of utmost importance. 17 Whoever the
person may be or whatsoever the organisation or coalition of
organisations may be, the convener must command the respect of the
majority of the people of South Sudan and must not present an obvious
conflict of interest.
President Kiir proclaimed himself as the patron, though it was
announced later that he has relinquished that position, 18 but really
nothing has changed. He is still an indirect convener of the national
dialogue, who will continue to engineer the processes, procedures,
mandate and outcomes indirectly to achieve his agenda. A majority of
the people of South Sudan regardless of ethnicity, believe that
President Salva Kiir is not leading the country in the right
direction. Second, President Kiir is the architect of the 15 December
2013 crisis. These views and those not expressed in this article do
not qualify President Kiir to be a credible convener.
The direct co-chairs of this national dialogue are Hon. Abel Alier and
Hon. Angelo Beda. Both of these gentlemen will never command the
respect and credibility of the majority people of South Sudan. Their
historical legacies, which will not be discussed in this article,
before the independence of South Sudan are in deep and serious
questions.
Clear Mandate, Structures, Rules and Procedures
For South Sudan national dialogue to be successful, it must have a
clear mandate, structures, rules and procedures. This means that the
national dialogue must take place outside of the existing institutions
of government. This is because the only reason for President Kiir to
initiate national dialogue is because he has recognised that his
current sitting government and its existing institutions are unable to
resolve the major issues at hand. Furthermore, national dialogue must
have its own set of rules, structures and procedures for
decision-making and they must be transparent. The President is heavily
dependent on degrees because that is his only way of dictation.
Framework for such a very crucial policy must go through parliamentary
procedures so that the mandate, structure, rules and procedures are
promulgated for transparency for public scrutiny.
Phase Three: Outcome Implementation
This phase involves setting mechanisms for the implementation of
tangible outcomes.19
Outcome Implementation
The last phase is the implementation phase. These are tangible
outcomes generated throughout the process and this includes setting
out agreed mechanisms for the implementation of those outcomes.
Without a clear implementation plan, South Sudan national dialogue can
never achieve tangible results besides the risks of consuming time and
resources. Again you cannot assume you will arrive well at the final
destination if at all you did not prepare very well for the journey.
So, without inclusivity and consensus among stakeholders, the national
dialogue risk being a one-sided dialogue, which hardly involves the
participation of the other concerned partner(s). There is fear that if
the recommendations do not support Salva Kiir’s/JCE’s agenda, they
will never be implemented. Second, if the national dialogue is not
inclusive, there is no way its recommendations shall be accepted by
major opposition groups (armed and unarmed). And, if the oppositions
are not part of the process, they will not participate in the
implementation of outcomes. Therefore, the South Sudanese national
dialogue, in its current form, will not achieve the much need outcome
that could deliver peace dividends to be enjoyed by all South
Sudanese.
What can President Kiir do to make the national dialogue successful?
Based on the above arguments, South Sudan national dialogue initiative
is commendable; however, it will be wise for President Kiir to halt
the current national dialogue processes and employ a more inclusive,
transparent and publicly acceptable processes.
President Kiir should consider a request by all opposition groups to
renew the ARCSS, which will make the national dialogue more attractive
to the major stakeholders in the conflict once peace is achieved.
The best possible way is for President Kiir to hold the national
dialogue outside South Sudan to allow for inclusivity and open
conversation. Once the national dialogue is completed so that the
outcomes of the national dialogue shall inform the renewed peace
negotiation processes.
President Kiir must be prepared to re-negotiate the ARCSS in good
faith without being intransigent if his agenda is centred on key
issues of conflict including building South Sudan for all South
Sudanese.
President Kiir must have the political will to fully implement the
outcomes of national dialogue and/or renewed peace agreement without
reservations and for the betterment of all South Sudanese people.
The authors can be reached at [email protected],
[email protected], and [email protected]
Comments on the Sudan Tribune website must abide by the following
rules. Contravention of these rules will lead to the user losing their
Sudan Tribune account with immediate effect.
- No inciting violence
- No inappropriate or offensive language
- No racism, tribalism or sectarianism
- No inappropriate or derogatory remarks
- No deviation from the topic of the article
- No advertising, spamming or links
- No incomprehensible comments
Due to the unprecedented amount of racist and offensive language on
the site, Sudan Tribune tries to vet all comments on the site.
There is now also a limit of 400 words per comment. If you want to
express yourself in more detail than this allows, please e-mail your
comment as an article to [email protected]
Kind regards,
The Sudan Tribune editorial team.
15 June 03:33, by hendi permana
thanks for this newsobat herbal campak
obat herbal muntaber untuk dewasa dan anak anak
cara mengobati luka bekas operasi caesar
repondre message
15 June 09:49, by html color
Thanks for the information you brought to us. Look forward to
reading more useful and new articles from you!
html color
--
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/southsudankob
View this message at
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/southsudankob/topic-id/message-id
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
---
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].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/SouthSudanKob.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SouthSudanKob/CAJb14op9Fjz32tmSKxFMSNj%2B0GAGH91yiFFZHR1Fd6MeGzbp%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
