Sunday, February 5, 2017

WHO'S ACTUALLY BEING GOVERNED IN SOUTH SUDAN?

There are many South Sudanese who talk of 'public opinion' or 'popular view'; but how do you gauge that such a view is actually an unsolicited opinion which people hold without fear of retribution? In a nation where holding a contrary opinion is considered a national security threat, it's dishonest to say that there's such a thing as a public opinion because the available 'public opinion' is conditioned into existence by the vicious political class. Those who oppose some of the government's ridiculous, aimless decrees and actions on civilians, have either been silenced, killed or threatened quotidian.

This leads me to this unsavory question: In whose interest the government of South Sudan governs? Admittedly, the government isn't governing in the interest of the people and we still wonder why there's so much inter-tribal hatred and rampant rebellion. When will SPLM and the government actually listen to the people? Apparently, never!


In June and August of 2012, the SPLM and government of South Sudan carried out a study (survey) to gauge 'public opinion'. It was no surprise that, while the people were somehow hopeful about the future, they were categorically dissatisfied with how SPLM was running the country. This should have been a wake-up call for the SPLM leadership to start listening to the people.

SPLM ignored this honest and valuable 'voice of the people.' The 2011-2013 South Sudan Development Plan was also a good development document that could have addressed all the grassroots grievances. Again, it was ignored!

There's nowhere in the world where people can rise up against a government, which listens to the people and addresses their concern.

Are Nuer, who support SPLM-IO, fighting the government because they love to fight? Are folks in Equatoria fighting the government because they love to kill people? Are Shilluk fighting the government because they love to kill president Kiir's tribesmen? The answer is obviously NO!

These people are fighting because of the failure of the government to address their grievance. SPLM, coming from a militarized governance mentality, feels that force is the appropriate manner in which such grievances should be addressed. Another flawless method is to appease some people by offering jobs without actually addressing the underlying causes of the problem.

Molding opinion by coercion or appeasement is dangerous in the long run.

Rebellion, insecurity and inter-tribal feuds will continue in South Sudan unless the government actually talks to the people and addresses their grievances in an honest and comprehensive manner. For instance, a fact-finding mission to the Fertit would find out their grievances and then the government can work closely with them to come up with a method to address their grievances for the long-term. Offering their leaders jobs without actually making sure that the people are 'happy' with the fashioned solution is a myopic leadership fancy.

Conditioning people to sing government praises in Juba doesn't get rid of the actual sentiment people hold. You can militarily force people to surrender but you can't militarily force them to like, with emotive honesty, a government that's oppressing them. If there are things that make it hard for the government to perform some duties then it needs to be honest with the people so that people don't assume things.

Juba is not the only South Sudan and the residents of Juba are not the only population of South Sudan. The zombified (knowingly or unknowingly) people of Juba can't be used to gauge the actual 'public opinion'. South Sudanese have fled to Sudan, Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda; and some are living in displaced camps inside South Sudan. Yet, some of us have the audacity to say that there's an overwhelming, positive public opinion of the government!

GET UP! WALK THE COUNTRYSIDE AND TALK TO THE PEOPLE! Without that, we'll be in a perpetual state of war, insecurity and inter-tribal bloodbath! LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE! This is our only way out!

ON CULTURAL IDENTITY & BELONGING

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.

TOLERANCE & INCLUSION


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.