Sunday, February 26, 2017

Excluding Kiir and Riek in post-war leadership without their consent is counter-productive

President Kiir and fromer FVP Dr. Riek Machar
While President Kiir and former First Vice President, Riek Machar, are part of the problem that plunged South Sudan into political and military confrontations, I do believe that any planned post-war leadership program that excludes them without their consent would be counter-productive. There is absolutely no doubt that the two men have to retire; however, it would be ill-advised to think that these two would accept to be politically forced out or they would accept to step down as if they care about the people of South Sudan. Under no circumstances will these two men accept to step down without any broad-based program that can make sure that they only step down under a comprehensive, inclusive national leadership conference.
In such a conference, these leaders need to be shown how their continued existence in leadership struggle will be a haunting ghost that'll continue to impede any progress, prolong tribal animosity and civil war, and lead to the demise of the country. However, the two leaders would be given a chance to convince South Sudanese and the nation why their continued leadership struggle isn't a spectral political nightmare. 
Part of what makes it hard for these two leaders to step down is the vehement and irrational support their tribal constituents give them. Basically, these supporters will stand by them no matter the atrocities committed by these two leaders. All the problems faced by the civilians and the destruction meted out on the country will only be blamed by the respective supporters on their rivals. Anyone coming up with any solution modalities for the South Sudanese problems has to incorporate this tribal reality into the solution matrix. Admittedly, this tribal reality is categorically unsavory, however, it’s a reality we cannot push under the rug or turn a blind eye on. A transitional readership of technocrats once suggested by Dr. Lual A. Deng and now being championed by Dr. Majak D’Agoot and former political detainees will have to address this tribal dynamic if the supporters of the two leaders are to entertain any notion of the two infamous leaders stepping down.

Many Jieeng people see criticism of President Kiir as not being focused on the issues but on the hatred of the man himself. Any criticism from non-Jieeng is considered tribal; any criticism from different dialectal group of within Jieeng is considered a sectional bias. Unless these tribo-political realities are addressed, any prescribed leadership process will always be tribalized and therefore doomed to failure through tribo-military and tribo-political resistance informed by both ignorance or misunderstanding.

And this tribal reality has always been ignored or downplayed by South Sudanese leaders. This salient feature of our tribo-national existence has to be factored into any solution modalities. Dr. Riek and Dr. Lam ignored this tribal reality in 1991. President Kiir ignored this reality when he incorporated Paulino Matip into the SPLA with his forces under his ‘big term philosophy’ without any long-term plan. President Kiir also ignored this tribal reality when he fired Riek Machar with his entire cabinet in July of 2013. Political opponents of President Kiir—some of whom would later rebel and some would later be arrested after the December mutiny—ignored this tribal reality when they held a press conference on December 6, 2013.
While I agree that Dr. Riek Machar and President Salva Kiir need to step down as they cannot be part of any peacefully working antebellum or post-war leadership, I do believe that excluding them in any post-war leadership program without their consent would still plant negative sentiments among their supporters and fuel future political rift. Any long-term solution to the South Sudanese leadership nightmares need these two men to step down, though no willingly, but with some understanding.

Follow me on twitter @kuirthiy


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