Sunday, January 15, 2017

Creating More States is to Avoid Solving Problems

Slicing up South Sudan into more administrative boundaries [states] is to avoid solving the problem. obviously, additional states are not a solution to governance problems and service provision in South Sudan. Additional states don't increase human power and resources nor do they solve the security problems. From the look of things, things will continue in the same trajectory as this euphoric but false sense of satisfaction from the creation of more states gives people a false sense of hope and security.

The leadership in South Sudan has developed a knack for postponing problems rather than solving them. The internal problems within SPLM resulted from the failure of leaders to tackle things head on. SPLM meetings were postponed in the hope that the problem will magically disappear. The August 2015 peace agreement, the Agreement for the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (ARCISS), was a postponement of the politico-military problems.

Now, the waves of decreemania that's resulting in the creation of more states in South Sudan is a postponement of conflicts and problems in South Sudan. It gives people false feelings that the leadership is solving their problems.

Not only does the creation of more states compartmentalize some tribes and further exacerbate  tribal divisiveness, it also creates more administrative units with no governance and administrative infrastructure needed for service provision. And since these states are created without prior fact-finding missions to first assess and deal comprehensively with communal border issues, the states have added to fatal divisiveness.

A false sense of hope is more dangerous than hopelessness. This is the case in South Sudan. A populace that comes to  the realization that their government wouldn't do anything for them would resort to self-sufficient methods, however difficult. However, a population that's given a false sense of hope that government decrees will solve their problems will remain in destitution and helpless for a long time.

When will South Sudanese leaders realize that creation of more states is a problem postponed? Essentially, some South Sudanese governors operate remotely; far away from the people they are supposedly governing. As one government critic said, this is to bring problems rather than towns to people. Some administrative headquarters are mere mud huts villages.

The federal government also has no strategic and national method of dealing with inter and intra-tribal problems, most of which fatal. However, the South Sudanese government continues to further divide the country administratively as if the current division isn't enough. South Sudan's tribes need to be brought together not divided administratively. We would have thousands of countries in the world if people were given what they want in terms of self-governance.

Making people temporarily 'happy' isn't the same thing as building a healthy future for them.

The colonial [British] idea of creating ethnically-based administrative units in South Sudan was meant to make it easy for the colonial authorities, most of whom not well funded, to control the 'natives.' There was nothing positive about colonial tribal areas. Ethnic districts made it easy for colonial authorities to turn tribes against one another and therefore make them governable through division.

The 'No Man's Land' that was created by the British officials between the Jieeng and Nuer in Upper Nile, which separated Nyarweng and Hol Dinkas from Lou Nuer and Garweer exacerbated the problem rather than solve it. While Europeans nations were trying to bridge their differences and avoid wars through treaties, British officials denied South Sudanese tribes that chance. They rather separate them than help them see ways of mutual interest.

South Sudan has enough problems as it is so it's needless to create more problems while solutions to them are postponed.


Dear Melbournians, the South Sudanese people to be precise. Do you think we have seen it all? Do you think we have seen that: I mean in the aftermath of yesteryears, in regard to our culture and the notions around identity and belonging? Do you think we have seen the true reaping of what we sowed years ago? Do you really think so? After all, did we really sow anything like seeds and that there’s something to be reaped? Did we really live it out well to be seen today?

I am sorry to have bothered you, my potential readers, with questions regarding our social, economic, and political location in our host society: Australia. I think we have not seen it all and as a whole: The idea that people are bound by certain values and beliefs of significance to them. This requires cooperation and role-specific obligations on the roles of every man and woman across a given people and their society.


While it is possible for us to racially discriminate or judge people we know, the chances of judging people we know diminish significantly the more we know them. An easy example of the importance of understanding others is the attitude people develop when they want to harm others or when they want to deny them something valuable. Essentially, before you fight someone, you insult them. Insults are attempts at diminishing the value of people, an attempt at estranging them, as Toni Morrison argued in The Origin of Others. It is easy to discriminate against strangers or make others strangers or dehumanized in order to discriminate against them.

Transformational Leadership, Inclusive Institutions and Service Provision

Leadership, given what is happening now in South Sudan, and generally in Africa, fascinates me. And it fascinates me not in a good way but because of the sociopolitical and socioeconomic ills facing the African continent and most of the so-called 'Third World.' To me, South Sudan, now, is a classic case.

Rebellion by disaffected politico-military leaders and repression by the government of South Sudan in Juba have stunted institutional development and leadership growth. This has made service provision almost irrelevant as political survival has taken primacy and supremacy. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

‘Black’ as an Identity Oversimplification and Mockery

Black as a universalized cultural identity of the African Person (AP)* is a residual effect of slave and colonial mentality; a racial/race paradigm. It is a malady I call, conservatively speaking, stuck-in-the-past syndrome of color constraints. Black could be an on-the-street ‘social identifier’ of race figures not a meaningful phenomenon of deep cultural identification on a universal scale.

Author's Photo Gallery - Presentations