I too have a
lot of respect for Prof Mamdani, and the work he has done counter-acting the
sensationalism of the Enough Project over the Darfur Crisis. Especially in
illustrating the fact that the issue not as simplistic as a black and arab
crisis or genocide, but that there is a political and ecological issues that
also explain the conflict. I wish that he had taken the less simplistic
argument for the crisis in South Sudan as well.
This article
though, really pissed me off…and I would like to address some of the key issues
with the article;
“The
immediate background to the current crisis is the declining support for Kiir,
….. Before Kiir dismissed them from their respective leadership positions,
at least three in the party leadership had publicly declared their intention to
run against him in the coming elections. One was Machar, second in the
state-party leadership, the second person was the secretary-general of the
party, Pagan Anum. And the third was Rebecca Garang, the widow of the late
SPLA leader.
“
This
statement has to be qualified…declining support from whom? While it is true
that Kiir’s popularity and support within the SPLM is not what it used to be,
it is not clear that any one side holds a majority. The SPLM party structures
allow for the removal of the chairman by 2/3 vote by members of the National
Liberation Council and they can call for an extraordinary meeting to do so.
“The
Chairperson may be removed by the NC in an extraordinary session convened on
the request of at least two thirds (2/3) of members of the NLC for violation of
this Constitution or gross misconduct provided that the resolution for the
removal of the Chairperson shall be carried by three quarters (¾) of all
members of the National Convention.” SPLM manifesto, 2008
This has not
happened to date and the December meeting of the NLC, in fact confirmed Pagan’s
removal from position of SeCy. This
shows that there is no ‘majority’ support for Machar or his agenda. This was
also clearly illustrated during his removal as VP. Most of us in South Sudan
feared a return to conflict but there has always been a veneer of mistrust over
Machar, given his history in SPLM and there was unrest or people calling for
his reinstatement. Most people I know feel that Wanni Igga (the current VP) should
have been the VP from the very beginning, given his history within the
SPLM. If there was majority support for
Machar and his agenda, we should have seen this at during time the national
reconciliation committee that he led was cancelled, when the executive powers
granted him by Kiir were removed, and later during his firing as VP.
I am
assuming Mamdani is talking about declining support from the party. Because I
would hesistate to say that any of the three named figures have ‘widespread’
support of the general public. Nyandeng’s legacy as minister of roads and
transport was one of self-enrichment and was rife with lack of accountability. Pagan
is currently under investigation for corruption, and while I do believe he is
being scape-goated because of his stated intention to run at the 2015 election
–it is difficult to determine if he even has enough support within SPLM for
this to happen- there are elements of truth in these charges. I am saying he is being scapegoated because he
is not the only corrupt official who should to be facing charges.
“With the majority in the party against him, Kiir
decided to use the structures of the state to dismantle whatever still remained
of the organs of the party. The occasion for this came when his opponents demanded
that he disband the Presidential Unit that he had set up, which he placed not
only outside regular army structures but also, more or less, under his own
control. According to those opposed to Kiir, though he agreed to do
so, he began by disarming only Nuer soldiers in the unit. When they
resisted, he claimed it was an attempted coup.”
Alas, again, the word, majority. This explanation of the events of Dec 15th
seem to be from Dr. Adwok Nyaba’s ‘root causes’ article which is questionable. There
are many versions of what inspired the events that have led us here and at this
point, e.g just this one article has more than one version…
Anyone who’s lived in Juba knows how quickly rumours spread and barring
a full investigation; it is difficult to ascertain what actually happened. I
think it is unfortunate to peddle one version of events in the meantime. Mamdani does not
mention when this disarming of Nuer soldiers happened- was it immediately after
the walkout at the NLC meeting? Did it happen during? Did it spontaneously
occur during the night? What is the ethnic identity of who shot first? At this point it is irresponsible to make this
a DInka-Nuer issue. The composition of the Presidential Guard is both Nuer and
DInka- whether or not the guards are under the direct control of the president
is irrelevant – unless Mamdani wants to claim that it was a force bigger than
the regular army, and therefore a threat to the entire country.
When Kiir unilateraly dismissed both the vice chair and
the secretary-general of the party, along with other senior officials, from
leadership positions, the move did away with structures of accountability
in both the party and the state. It also destroyed whatever conflict resolution
machinery existed at both levels.
This makes no sense at all. Kiir
dismissed Machar in his position as Vice-President. The vice-president serves at the discretion
of the president- according to the 2011 constitution of South Sudan. As do the
Ministers. The NLC convention was held to vote for key documents, which uphold
the structures of splm, including the manifesto. How does the dismissal of
these two persons destroy conflict resolution mechanisms? SPLM is composed of
more than the 3 – the Political Bureau, the National Convention and the NLC are
all existing ‘conflict resolution’ structures. I believe these rebels should
have been responsible enough to use the party structures to resolve any issues
within the SPLM, up to drumming up enough support to dismiss the chairperson,
if they deemed this necessary.
“This, then, is neither an attempted
coup nor a rebel attempt to take over government. It is, rather, an attempt by
the top leader of the government to forestall a vote of no confidence in his
leadership, by dismantling all structures of accountability in a bid to
usurp power.”
While it is questionable that this started as a coup, the fact that
Machar has stated that his aims and the rebels aims are to overthrow the
current government, and has threatened to overrun the capital means that this
is now essentially a coup. His speaking about diverting oil revenues from Juba
and directly negotiating with Khartoum brings to memory 1991- and again, given
that people have lost lives, and fled their homes, really makes us wonder where
his priorities lie. It is a bit dismissive of the rebels stated aims to
discount that their stated intentions have been to overthrow the government of
south sudan is contradictory.
“Internally, to call for power sharing in South Sudan is to
ignore a central fact: rather than a conflict between two powers, this conflict
resulted from a split in the power. So the problem is how to reconstitute that
power.”
I agree with this. The events of the
past few weeks are about political ambitions and a fight to gain power and
illustrate internal splits within the SPLM- and in my opinion a lack of vision/
leadership within the party. This was accelerated because neither group has garnered
the necessary majority to overthrow the other group through existing mechanism-
either by pushing through a no confidence vote at the NLC meeting or through
parliament. That one group then chose to use alternate means to gain power or
credibility- using the excuse that a war will result in a more democratic South
Sudan – is a pity- and should be excoriated.
The elections are/were to be held in
2015. South Sudan desperately needs an opposition/ alternative party to the
SPLM. Most of us would have preferred to see a viable alternative come from the
disgruntled elements. South Sudan does not need an ethnic-based fight for power
because of the ambitions of a few individuals. Neither does South Sudan need
the irresponsible reporting by the international media that has made this into
a Dinka-led government and a Nuer-led insurgency, at the expense of the
political divisions that have resulted in this crisis.
And this is not a widespread
endorsement of the presidency of Salva Kiir- there have been numerous disappointments.
However, I include this group of rebels as being part of the problem and not a
solution. Machar as VP has overseen the widespread corruption that has been
endemic in South Sudan he cannot divorce himself from this and lay all the
blame on Kiir. All these parties have
been sleeping in the same bed.
The way
forward right now is for all parties to lay down arms. While they are busy
playing political chess games at the Sheraton in Addis, thousands have died,
hundreds of thousands have fled their homes, and are living in dire straits in
IDP camps, and widespread fear is a reality for the majority of Junubin. An investigation into the events of Dec 15th,
and subsequent events –including any human rights violations- and following
judicial due process is necessary for accountability. South Sudan is a
republic. The Government of South Sudan, regardless of whatever issues with the
direction taken, is still a democratically elected government. Let us follow
due process of the law. If the majority of us are unhappy with the government
or presidency- we should be talking about impeachment- not civil war.
Here are
additional viewpoints:
*I need to
write about media coverage of events. Al Jazeera has been completely
irresponsible- no wonder their correspondent was expelled from Juba. They are
not the only ones. It feels like the media has been wishing for a genocide to
happen. Reporting has been wishful thinking, at best.
No comments:
Post a Comment