Why a technocratic transitional government in South Sudan?
Article
Comments (0)
email Email
print Print
pdfSave
separation
increase
decrease
separation
separation
Dr Lam Akol
The youngest country in the world was born amid great expectations and
hopes for the future. These were not day dreams or castles built in
the air. The hope was based on the fact that the country is endowed
with human and natural resources very few African countries, if any,
had at independence. Today it is a basket case not because of
misplaced assessment of its resources but of bad leadership. The
current regime in Juba has turned its back on the slogans of
liberation and turned into an ethnocentric kleptocracy that cared less
about its people but only about syphoning the resources of the country
to support its extensive patronage networks so as to prolong its stay
in power. Therefore, it is not by accident that the country is today
embroiled in an unnecessary ethnic civil war that has seen horrendous
war crimes and crimes against humanity being committed by both sides
of the conflict. The last and current spite of civil war was initiated
by none other than the sitting President. It follows that any attempt
to resolve the current crisis must never reward perpetrators of
atrocious crimes nor tolerate impunity.
Classical liberal prescriptions of peace agreements, as has been the
case in Sudan and South Sudan, end up with a transitional government
that is entrusted to implement the provisions of the peace agreement
reached by the negotiators. These provisions are usually meant to stop
the war, create a conducive atmosphere for a sustainable peace through
democratic transformation and reform of governance institutions and
finally the conduct of a general election for the people to choose
their leaders in a free, fair and credible manner. The question is:
can the antagonists be trusted to carry out that mission?
The simple answer to this question is that they can’t. There are many
reasons for that. Suffice it here to stress that a transitional
government stitched together from the warring parties has no chance of
being coherent as each side jockeys for advantages with the eyes set
on the ball; that is winning the elections that will follow at the end
of the Transition in two or so years. Such was the case in 2005-2011
and in 2015-2016 with disastrous consequences. This vicious circle has
to be broken if South Sudan has to have a chance of stability not to
mention democratic transformation. The way out is by eliminating from
the power equation the politicians with vested interests in the
outcome of the elections expected to take place at the end of the
Transition. The Transition should be run by South Sudanese patriots
who are not engaged in partisan politics but have the requisite
ability to execute the tasks of the transitional government and
deliver a free, fair and credible election at the end of the
Transition. The politicians should wait and use the short Transition
to build their political parties or Movements in preparation for the
general election.
It is these South Sudanese we call technocrats. They are part of the
broader civil society and should not be confused with technicians nor
are they necessarily civil servants in active service. There are many
of them out there. Their selection must be based on strict criteria
agreed upon a priori and on that basis, they shall be vetted by the
stakeholders who negotiated and signed the peace agreement to be.
Another condition that should be imposed on them to further ensure
their undivided attention to their task at hand is not to seek
elective office immediately after the Transition.
The major obstacle in agreeing on transitional governments in peace
talks has always been the insistence of the sitting government that it
was elected by the people and thus enjoys the legitimacy to continue
ruling. In South Sudan today, the civil war itself is a damning
verdict against that claimed legitimacy, for the cardinal function of
a government, is to safeguard its people from fear and from want. The
current regime in Juba could not do either. In fact, it has been the
main cause of fear with millions voting with their feet to become
refugees and internally displaced. Some quarter of a million has
chosen to seek protection from the atrocities of their government in
the UNMISS Protection of Civilians sites in the national capital and
other towns. The remaining population is in the grip of food shortage
and real famine. It is only the international good will that keeps
them surviving. If the people whose sovereignty the government should
be exercising on their behalf are undergoing such tribulations, what
moral authority has the regime to cling on to power?
For those who see things through a legalistic lens only, it sufficient
to state that the current regime in Juba is de facto and not de jure.
There are many reasons to support this conclusion but for the lack of
space, only one shall be here mentioned. It is to be recalled that
since independence the South Sudanese have never elected a president
nor members of Parliament. The current government derives its
legitimacy only from the August 2015 Agreement for the Resolution of
Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (Agreement). This is why it is
termed the Transitional Government of National Unity (TGoNU) as came
in the Agreement. Since the agreement has collapsed, the legitimacy of
that government goes with it and it is not renewable. A new
dispensation has to be worked out in a new all-inclusive roundtable of
stakeholders. It is in this context that this proposal is being made.
Sudan has seen two technocratic transitional governments in its modern
history. Both came about after popular Uprisings overthrew the
military juntas (in 1964 and 1985) and led the Transition to
democratic elections. The Council of Ministers, which wielded
executive authority, was in both cases composed of nonpartisan
personalities that paved the way for democratic elections. Of course,
technocratic transitional governments are not without problems, but
taking all factors into account they come up far on top compared with
a transitional government of politicians if the purpose is to prepare
a level field for all.
To recap, the main reason for proposing a technocratic transitional
government in South Sudan is to put in place a team that can deliver
the Transition to its intended purpose. That purpose is to prepare a
level ground for all citizens for the country to leave its troubled
past behind and embark on a truly democratic path.
--
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/CAJb14ooYRQGLBPFBbnRWzK59Uzu6ZQjBRqQu2ZiMNipW0eP%3DEw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
