South Sudan’s young scholars, Nhial Tiitmamer and Abraham Awolich, wrote a remarkable policy update paper for their weekly review for The Sudd Institution on March 11, 2014. In that paper, Nhial and A
braham presented arguments against two different proposals presented by ‘South Sudanese analysts’ as possible ways forward for South Sudan. The said two methods are UN Trusteeship and a Joint
Administration by South Sudanese and selected international bodies. These suggestions are presented as part of restructuring, institutionalizing and anchoring of South Sudan as a nation with functional structures, institutions and policy framework.
While I’m not
going to recommend any of the proposed methods, I’d like to caution readers and
policy writers against any rush to dismiss the proposals without their proper
appraisals. Sadly, I’m not going to appraise the two methods; however, I’m
going to vaguely show how such methods would be advisable for South Sudan as
far as institutionalization and development ambience are concerned.
Policy advisors,
like The Sudd Institute, would be better placed if they comprehensively present
both sides of any policy situation in order to afford the readers an avenue to
consume chiefly contextualized policy positions. The manner in which Nhial and
Awolich dismissed the two suggestions they focused on, without presenting any
would-be benefits of such undertakings, is a policy angle I’d not advise.
I would advise
that the authors present the pros and cons first before settling for what they
believe is their preferred policy advisory; in this case, the rejection of the
said governance and administrative proposals.
While the authors
have agreed with the proposers on some points (especially with Lyman), they’ve
not dwelled appropriately on the merits of both the Trusteeship and the Joint
Administration. Proper policy advisory would present the merits of the two
methods comprehensively before the presentation of the arguments as to why
they’d not work in South Sudan.
Protecting a failed System vs. Building a strong
and functional system
There’s no
question that South Sudan has adequate manpower to build strong institutions
for a prosperous way forward. And with no doubt, the best way to bring change
and long-term prosperity to any given country is to make sure such parameters
are internally generated. Externally generated success modalities sideline the
internal creativity and frustrate long-term sustainable development.
However, the
problem in South Sudan is not manpower per
se and I agree with the authors. It’s the political atmosphere, institutional
capacity and maturity. But one has to ask oneself. Do we have a conductive atmosphere
and a strong institutional soundness that can allow educated South Sudanese to
effect the required change? If not, then what are the indications that this
would be effected anytime soon?
The authors know
very well that South Sudanese leadership has failed miserably to establish
institutional capacities that make a nation functional. What are the causes of
this failure over the last eight years? Why would the authors believe the
leadership that has failed over the last eight years will all of the sudden
build institutional capacities that would allow development of institutional
professionalism? It’s Einstein who once said that doing something over and over
again in the same way and expecting a different result is madness.
The authors will
have to convince us that there has developed an appreciable change in Juba for
development of independent and functional institutions. Otherwise, a
depressing, stagnant and failed merry-go-round is a support to the intransigent
elites and a support for a failed system.
Creating ‘Enabling Conditions’ for South Sudanese
UN Trusteeship and
Joint Administration (if necessary) would not discount South Sudanese contribution
and their place in charting a new, development-conscious and
transparency-friendly South Sudan. In a word, Educated South Sudanese would
still be central to all development initiatives and leadership. Whether it was
in East Timor or Namibia, the citizens of those countries were never left out.
What UN officials did was to act as impartial guidance and expert voices
together with their indigenous counterparts. Citizens have a say regarding the
methods to be established.
Even with South
Africa occupying Namibia illegally after UN deemed its mandate over with the
end of the League of Nations, UN, through UNTAG[3], still
found it imperative to allow South Africa to administer elections with UN supervision.
Martti Ahtisaari, then the
UN Special Representative for Namibia, made sure all the stake holders were
involved in not only the elections process but the transitional process.
What they would do,
in the case of South Sudan should that be absolutely necessary, is to create
the atmosphere that would allow educated and knowledgeable South Sudanese to
effectively contribute to national development. The culture of favoritism,
nepotism, rampant corruption and inter-tribal animosity would be checked by a
neutral guiding voice given a specified period of time. This period would still
be agreed upon by South Sudanese politicians and the guiding body (UN or
otherwise).
As the authors note very well that “inflated political egos, ethnic
politics, and lack of peaceful political culture” are “the root of the current
violence.” Keeping those in mind, what are the indications that these attitudes
have changed (or will change) among the ranks of South Sudanese ruling elites? What
are the indications that the current leadership will create ‘enabling
conditions’ for development of across-the-board institutional strength? What
has the government done so far to give South Sudanese some hope that
governance, accountability and rule of law will be the face of our new South
Sudan?
We have to remember that the UN Trusteeship or any Joint
Administration would not be the sole brains or the manpower behind the
country’s development. They would only act as impartial facilitators of development
and transition. The onus would still be on the citizens to take advantage of
the conducive atmosphere otherwise nothing would change. So, whether or not
South Sudan changes for better if placed under such administrations rests
solely with South Sudanese.
‘Wounded Egos’ vs. South
Sudanese Future
I rather see my people live in peace and looking forward to a
prosperous nation in which they use their potential for the betterment of the
country regardless of who brings it. What I’d reject is perpetual dependency on
others. However, we can’t put our egos before our national interest. We are a
new nation; a nation on transition. Besides, we have a ruling political party
that is trying to shed the scales of militarism. These are things that need
time. However, we need help to make sure such a transition is made possible
within a reasonable time.
We should not be worried that the world would see us as incapable of
taking care of our affairs. We are not incapable but we have obstructive
conditions that are frustrating our ability to show our national capacities. In
a sense, we need appreciable humility to accept conditions that’d ensure we actually
show the world that we are able.
I understand, as Rüdiger Wolfrum argues that “Such intervention from
the outside faces the dilemma that by influencing or even by taking over
governmental authority, either totally or partially or to establish new
governmental structures for that territory in turmoil such intervention
interferes with the right of self-determination of the respective population to
decide on its political and economic future.”
“However,” Wolfrum adds, “without assisting activities from the outside
the population would not be able to exercise its right of self-determination
due to the lack of representative institutions.”[4]
What’s best for our nation should take primacy over our would-be
wounded egos. Part of being a decently educated population is the ability to
see when something isn’t working and being able to humbly look for an enduring
solution.
We need help, serious help, and it’s up to us to wisely know how to
fish out the best solution for our people with the help of people who are
willing to help us.
UN Trusteeship and Joint
Administration would be a possible alternative because
·
The current South Sudanese administration has not
created and is not capable (or unwilling) of creating a conducive atmosphere
for South Sudanese with skills to contribute toward national development.
·
There’s no any impartial development champion or
practical promoter of development. Development
initiatives are outlined but not followed through.[5]
·
Financial issues: South Sudanese go for months
without being paid and no one is held accountable. Embezzlement of public funds
is acknowledged but not punished.
·
Media Institutions are tightly controlled and
intimidated. Without any free press, the people lose their voice.
·
The national constitution is not adhered to by
its very custodians; only cited if the leadership feels it helps them. The culture
of belligerent militarism is the attitude leading the country instead of the
national constitution.
·
The current administration is encouraging the
development of the country as a nation of a single opinion dictated by the
ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM). Different opinions and
perspectives are either vilified or seen as views of enemies of the state. The
merits of different opinions are not even considered.
·
Protection of civilians is not a government
priority and this creates a culture of mistrust and tribal feuds. The strength
of the nation is perceived as the government rather than the people.
·
The leadership doesn’t feel it’s accountable to
South Sudanese. Decisions are made without being explained and those who suffer
are the average South Sudanese. The government works for itself rather than for
South Sudanese.
·
Leaders see themselves as unquestionable
demi-gods. This is not good for good governance, development, and the average
South Sudanese. Good leaders are supposed to be questioned.
·
Praising the president is one of the ways of landing
a high-paying job. Criticizing the president jeopardizes one’s job. This
atmosphere prevents truth from being told and people, who have different
opinions but can benefit the country, are shut out of leadership positions.
I’d like to advise Nhial and Abraham, as people working for one of
South Sudan’s respected
scholarly institutions, to be wary of the dismissive attitude among
South Sudanese intelligentsia and ruling elites. We are a proud populace,
however, we should be very careful regarding the detriment excess pride can
engender. Nations don’t fail because there are no educated people in the
country. Nations fail because of the nature of the political culture in the
country. Without any enabling conditions, no amount of education and creativity
can help.
I would also advise the authors to avoid the developing culture in
South Sudan in which ideas are dismissed without prescribing a viable
alternative. If they dismiss the two methods and believe that South Sudanese
can actually bring about these enabling conditions, then they also need to
present an alternative administrative and political framework and how it would bring
about this enabling conditions. As policy
advisors, the authors should not only talk about the what? but the how?
The how should be presented
step-by-step with clear time-frame, the governance mechanics, the mechanics for
the avoidance of past mistakes and the central, unifying political figures to
make the methods both plausible and efficacious.
Institutions become functionally strong and respectable if they are
led by people who not only know how to identify problems, but also how to solve them with vivid appreciable
transparency and competency. This, South Sudan lacks! Consequently, I see the
two proposed administrative methods as not ‘outlandish, but as necessary insults.
[1]
Cohen, Hank, South Sudan should
be placed under UN trusteeship to aid development of viable self-government.<
African Arguments, January 6, 3014, http://africanarguments.org/2014/01/06/south-sudan-should-be-placed-under-un-trusteeship-to-aid-development-of-viable-self-government-by-hank-cohen/>
[4] Wolfrum, Rüdiger International
Administration in Post-Conflict Situations by the United Nations and Other
International Actors, Max Planck Yearbook of United
Nations Law, Volume 9, 2005, p. 649-696.
___________________________________
Read PDF copy here: PDF copy of the article
