The pathology of power: South Sudan’s political theatre and the bankruptcy of institutional statesmanship

 

 

"The true measure of statesmanship is not how ferociously one attacks an opponent, but how responsibly one exercises influence when the nation is already fractured.. South Sudan is not a playground for rhetorical pyromania. It is a republic struggling with institutional fragility, historical trauma, political distrust, and immense public expectations."

 

By Cde Bil Riar*

South Sudan has reached a point where political discourse is no longer merely contentious; it is becoming institutionally corrosive, historically amnesiac, and rhetorically incendiary.

The increasingly confrontational posture attributed to Presidential Press Secretary Arek Aldo Ajou Deng Akuei, particularly toward Vice President Rebecca Nyandeng de Mabior, warrants more than partisan applause or condemnation. It demands a serious interrogation of constitutional propriety, political temperament, historical responsibility, and the ethical boundaries of presidential communication.

A spokesperson of the presidency is expected to be an institutional interlocutor, not a political belligerent; a custodian of governmental credibility, not an amplifier of factional antagonism.

And the same scrutiny must extend to Akol Santo Ariech and every other political actor participating in this increasingly combustible discourse.

The liberation history of South Sudan cannot be subjected to retrospective revisionism, genealogical opportunism, or political expropriation. The sacrifices of those who endured the liberation struggle should not be trivialized by individuals whose contemporary proximity to political power is subsequently presented as equivalent to historical participation.

Revolutionary legitimacy is not hereditary property, nor is governmental appointment a certificate of historical heroism.

The circulating WhatsApp screenshot involving allegations of financial demands and proposed political replacement should, however, be treated with epistemological caution: its authenticity, provenance, context, and completeness require independent verification before anyone converts it into political evidence. If authenticated, however, allegations of that magnitude would warrant serious institutional scrutiny rather than casual dismissal or social-media sensationalism.

The electoral question is equally incapable of being resolved through ceremonial declarations and political incantations.

Elections require fiscal capacity, administrative architecture, logistical preparedness, security guarantees, voter-registration infrastructure, legal certainty, and institutional credibility. Without these prerequisites, proclaiming electoral inevitability risks producing nothing more than democratic simulacrum—the appearance of democracy without the substantive conditions necessary for its credibility.

South Sudan does not need another juridico-political mirage.

It needs functioning institutions.

It needs accountable governance.

It needs political sobriety.

It needs leaders capable of understanding that power without institutional restraint degenerates into arbitrariness, while rhetoric without responsibility degenerates into political combustion.

Dr. John Garang's historical legacy should likewise not be transformed into ammunition for contemporary political vendettas. His place in the country's historical consciousness demands intellectual seriousness, not political iconoclasm masquerading as criticism.

And let nobody confuse vocabulary with wisdom.

A politician can possess an enormous lexicon and still demonstrate profound political myopia.

The true measure of statesmanship is not how ferociously one attacks an opponent, but how responsibly one exercises influence when the nation is already fractured.

South Sudan is not a playground for rhetorical pyromania.

It is a republic struggling with institutional fragility, historical trauma, political distrust, and immense public expectations.

Therefore:

Enough of the vituperation.

Enough of the historical opportunism.

Enough of the institutional impunity.

Enough of confusing proximity to power with political sagacity.

The Presidency requires statesmen, not incendiaries; interlocutors, not antagonists; constitutionalists, not political absolutists.

The political class may control today's microphones.

But history controls tomorrow's verdict

_______________________

*Comrade Bithriar Garang is  political commentator and advocate for accountable leadership, democratic participation and a stronger future for South Sudan. You can reach him at  bithriargarang@593gmail.com

Editorial Note: The views expressed in this articles belong solely to the author. 

Emotional Power : No racial or social group has monopoly over it

Kuir ë Garang*

"However, Europeans or men as a group are as emotionally vulnerable as any social group regardless of the influence men and Europeans have in society. No amount of economic and political power can make someone impervious to disrespect, insults, vulnerability (real or imagined)."

Most of us live in group settings. Some of us therefore tend to assume that most human actions are motivated and circumscribed by qualities that are shared by groups, especially dominant social groups: Europeans in the world, Men, Cis-gendered folks, the capitalist class, etc.

Some of us assume, inadvertently perhaps, that Europeans ("white" people) have more emotional power than others. I think this is not only wrong. It's also dangerous.

For instance, no social group, whether gender, racial, political or economic, possesses a collective emotional power. A social group, European say, may possess more economic and political power. This can allow them to influence how other social groups navigate society.

However, Europeans or men as a group are as emotionally vulnerable as any social group regardless of the influence men and Europeans have in society. No amount of economic and political power can make someone impervious to disrespect, insults, vulnerability (real or imagined).

This sounds like a commonsense reality. But think about it in real life. It's complicated.

With all his economic and political might, Donald Trump cannot pass any emotional test, however small. With all his economic might, Elon Musk becomes foul-mouthed when he is emotionally touched. When he realized his wife, Hilary Clinton, could lose to Obama, Clinton described Obama's campaign as a "fairly tale."

Now, imagine the average Jane and Deng in your office!

This is one of the issues, I believe, activists and advocates have overlooked. They expect the very racist, sexist and homophobe against whom they campaign to safeguard, or respect, the emotions of their victims. Racists, homophobes and misogynists are as emotionally vulnerable as the people they discriminate. This is an obstacle to systemic change.

This is why anti-racism faces such a strong push-back. Advocates expect non-racialized groups to treat an emotionally charged social reality logically while catering for the emotional needs of the racialized and the marginalized.

When Robin Di'Angelo talked about "White Fragility, and I don't think she's wrong, she also expects "white people" to have some sort of a super-human capacity to control emotions not as individuals (which is always possible) but as a collective "white people."

There are two lessons here. Any anti-racism program should understand that no collective group possesses a robotic capacity to control emotions. Being 'stoic" only means hiding emotions. It does not mean not feeling emotionally vulnerable.

The second lesson is the risk of putting the emotional well-being of the marginalized in the hands of the very people who discriminate against them.

____

*Kuir ë Garang is the editor of The Philosophical Refugee.