Charity
begins at home and the originator of that charity most likely ends at home.
I was advised by some
colleagues several times to join a certain policy forum. I refused three times
citing the fact that the forum is too 'elitist' and most of the times the
elites are out of touch with the average folks like me. When the reminders to
join the forum became really constant, even from people I've not met personally
but know me from my writings, I finally gave in and joined the forum.
My innocent assumption was
that the forum would merely be a discussion or critiquing of policies that'd be
beneficial to the country. I expected to see policy suggestions [only] and how
they could be modified and perfected into usable policies for the government of
South Sudan.
Naïve me! I was disappointed
to realize that the debates were no different from those vexatious ones on my Facebook
wall: circular, partisan, hypocritical, dishonest with education taken at
face-value. Big theories are suggested without context! Partisanship is so much
intellectualized that it takes one through rigorous analysis to discern
disguised partisanship. My disillusionment became so intense that I had to
unsubscribe from the forum in less than two weeks.
Believe me, if leaders argue
with ‘take it or leave it’ conditionals then I wonder how the leadership we
have (or are building) inside and outside the government of South Sudan can be
salvageable. Leadership is about relationship building and bringing the best
out of people (Corrales, 2007). The purpose of leadership, Corrales argues, can
only be achieved through building of strong relationships. Are our leaders
(inside and outside) the government doing that? Even Dr. Nyaba, who’s done more
through writing than anyone in South Sudan to highlight the problems we have in
the country, does little to build relationships with ‘the other side’ or even
within the Chollo community leadership. It’s always a blame-game (see IGAD’s
‘Peace Talks’ & Arusha Intra-SPLM dialogue).
Perhaps the RISC model (Rapport,
Initiative, Structure and Commitment) can help in our leadership purpose; and
that is, influencing our people into coalescence of canonical togetherness…or
simply, doing good (Corrales, 2007).
If the learned, veteran
politicians and the nation's elites have the same mindset my younger Facebook
friends have, then Kiir and Riek aren't our major problem. It seems our
‘intellectophere’ is either irrelevant in national coexistence, or our national
future is being intellectually crippled by intellectuals with holier-than-thou attitudinal ontologies.
We are learned but we don’t know how to give our knowledge context and relevant
usability. We seem to have what cognitive psychologists call ‘declarative
knowledge’ as opposed the helpful ‘procedural knowledge’ (Van Greenen, 2004).
And this reminds me of a very
excellent article written by Dr. Adwok Nyaba (SSN December 30, 2014) about ‘Our
intellectual journey towards a coherent political ideology.’ Anyone who’s not read that article should do so in
its entirety. The article pinpoints, with surgical precision, the problems in
South Sudan and within SPLM. These problems range from poverty of democratic
mentality and ideals, indifference to development of institutional capacities,
incoherent sense of nationhood (post-1956 & post-2005), the infamy of
militarism mixed with the malady of tribal essentialism, lack of essential development
programs, the Siamese-twins problem of the SPLM-SPLA, the primal nature of our
tribal relations etc.
We can all agree that Dr. Adwok’s article is very
crucial to our structural, functional and governance problems in South Sudan.
The question then becomes: are the power holders in South Sudan able to easily
apply the content of the article? If not, then the appropriation of what Dr.
Adwok wrote needs to be procured in a manner that’d make it beneficial to us
through the power holders.
Pointing out the problem is part of the solution but
devising how the problem should be tackled shouldn’t be left out. Without
intersubjective understanding among the political actors, nothing can be
possible. Institutions aren’t ‘brute physical facts’ as Stephen Krasner (1999)
has said. They exist because people exist.
Political leaders are audience and consumers of
intellectuals’ works. Understanding the general psychology, state of mind and
intellectual capacities and consciousness of who is in power helps in devising
mechanics and avenues of knowledge provision for purpose of ideological
creation and reification.
Intellectuals (whatever that means) in South Sudan
needs to remember that leadership is about relationship building and
appropriation of knowledge with people-people relationships in mind. We in
South Sudan seem to think of knowledge in the abstract or in self-serving
appropriation!
Besides, we have the problem of hypocrisy in South
Sudan. Most, if not all of us, are mired in what I call ‘stuck-in-the-past syndrome’
in South Sudan Ideologically (2013).
And as Adwok highlighted, some South Sudanese leaders don’t want to let go the
past and embrace future-relevant ideas and facts to develop the country. We are
all stuck in the past in one way or another.
With no doubt, we have ten states in South Sudan.
These ten states, midwifed from the previous three regions of Bahr El Ghazal,
Upper Nile and Equatoria, are constitutionally recognized. However, most of us
(Nyaba included) talk and write as if the previous three regions have
constitutional relevance. These regions are stuck in our heads and we simply
can’t let them go! Some of us talk of Greater Upper Nile and Greater Equatoria!
However, our intellectual and political integrity
depends on saying things that make sense. We tend to ignore this fact; however,
it exposes the hypocrisy we exudes on daily basis.
If the learned in South Sudan can’t let go this simple
fact, then why do they blame the semi-illiterate generals and politicians, who
can’t seem to understand that SPLM is now a political party and that SPLA is
the national army.
No one should advise if he/she can’t lead by example!
Greater Upper Nile is constitutionally defunct and exists only in our heads. If
we have nostalgia for these three regions then let’s wait until we go back to
them through the abolition of the current ten states. There and then can we
have political and intellectual currency to utter that [Greater X…]! Let’s be
consistent to be believable and respectable! What in God’s name is ‘Elders of
Bahr El Ghazal?’ What’s the contemporary or constitutional relevance of Bahr El
Ghazal to Lakes State and Warrap State? Nothing! The only relevance is a past
that’s stuck in our heads!
Yet, we hope to develop ‘a coherent political
ideology!’
Another good example of intellectual dishonesty and
hypocrisy (in this discourse) comes from my own county (Twic East). Some
potential intellectuals, who can help in the development of ‘a coherent
political ideology,’ come out here as very hypocritical and untrustworthy,
intellectually!
Twi people (or Twi Dinka) were part of Kongor District
from the mid-1970s to mid-1990s and prior to that, they were part of ‘Bor
District’ (Sammani, 1984). Kongor District is the one that is now divided into
Duk County and Twic East County. The ‘Bor District’ housed (until mid-1970s)
the Dinka sub-tribes of Hol, Nyarweng, Twi and Bor before being divided into
Kongor District (Twi Dinka, Nyarweng Dinka & Hol Dinka) and Bor District
(Bor Dinka & Thony Dinka). These subtribes have distinct Enthno-dialectal
differences (see Ethnology of Africa, 1930; Beswick, 2004) despite having
forged a close existential relationship for centuries. Because they were part
of the ‘Bor District’ they were known collectively as Dinka of Bor District
(see Raymond Kelly, 1985, Willes & Douglas, 1995).
Sound intellectuals and politicians know that this
close relationship, good neighborliness and brotherhood can be maintained
without falsification of identities.
However, against the required intellectual integrity,
the intellectuals among the four subtribes are mentally stuck with the old,
defunct ‘Bor District’, which they left in 1970s. While the District was named
after the now inhabitant of ‘Bor County’ (Kelley, 1985) the other three
subtribes were erroneously referred to as ‘Dinka Bor’. The inhabitants of Twic
East County and Duk County are not ethnolinguistically ‘Bor.’ The Bor Dinka
(now the inhabitants of Bor County) would call me ‘Cuir’ and President Kiir
would be president Ciir!
Bor only applied to Twi people because of their administrative
inclusion in the ‘Bor District,’ however, Twi intellectuals, while they apply
research-based debates or methods in some aspects, refuse to apply the same
method in the case just cited. You wonder why! They want to look politically good…but they know what that means in
terms of intellectual and scholarly integrity!
There are tons of books to establish what I just cited
(in addition to what elders can say). And Dr. Nyaba should probably ask the
likes of Dr. Majak D’Agoot and Dr. Lual Achuek Deng (in the spirit of
intellectual journey) the essence, intellectual and scholarly soundness of
‘Greater Bor.’ What historical facts (Oral or written) support ‘Greater Bor’
etymology? Is it an administrative area, a geographical area, or a dialectal
group?
Consulting historians like Douglas Johnson may help! Here,
intellectual soundness and historical-facts are sacrificed for political
expediency or prudence. It’s not about scholarly establishment of facts, which
is required, but political necessity. Is that the message to our youngsters?
And we wonder why we have incoherent political
ideologies and a herd of confused young ‘intellectuals’; and some misled
western scholars like Stephanie Beswick in Sudan’s
Bloody Memory, who beautifully presents the correct ethno-histories and
ethno-dialectal categories of the four subtribes but added that the ‘Eastern
Dinka’ are now referred to as ‘Dinka Bor’.
Or Deborah Scroggins, who says Kuol Manyang is a ‘Twic Dinka’ in her book Emma’s War (2004).
What does that say about our ‘intellectual journeys’,
‘incoherence’ of ‘our political ideologies’ and how we make political decisions?
Is preferring political gentlemanliness over facts a good way to act as role
models for the younger ‘intellectuals?
Sadly, this is the very problem we have in Juba! And
as Peter Thatcher (2013) argued in Leading
by Example, “Behaving with integrity is…about standing up for what is right
however uncomfortable that might be.” To create a sense of togetherness through
gigantic falsehood (or conscious misleading of uninformed masses) is to create
a great disservice to our people, the integrity of our intellectual force and a
blemish on our scholarly claims.
Does this tie in coherently with our ‘intellectual
journey toward a coherent political ideology?’ Sadly yes!
We need to ‘live what we are thinking’ as Weldon Long
said. Some folks in Kiir’s leadership see research-based or knowledge-based
decision making as an inconvenience to their political agenda. They understand
its value but it’s an ‘inconvenient truth’ as Al Gore said about the facts of
climate change. Democratizing SPLM would chip away on the powers of the
president! Strengthening institutional structures for accountability would
reduce the chance of the corrupt to embezzle public funds.
For younger learners like me, I’d love to see our
leaders and intellectuals appropriate their knowledge in a usable manner, lead
and live by example and take it upon themselves to embark on people-people
creation of honest understanding. I’d want to look up to leaders and
intellectuals who don’t make decisions because of their convenience but because
of certifiable facts future generation can learn from. If intellectuals make
decisions because of convenience then why would we blame Kiir Mayardit? If we
are stuck with defunct administrative centers that no longer exist then why
would we blame an illiterate commander, who sees the power of the guns as the
only solution to his remaining relevant?
Even if SPLM had a sound political ideology, a
coherent policy framework and feasible programs to implement, all would mean
nothing if inter-tribal relations are still thorny or if they are informed by falsehood
or conscious skewing of facts. Our intellectual journey and coherent political
ideology needs intellectual honesty, reduced partisanship and tribal
essentialism; and application of reductionist appropriation of knowledge.
Theories can be understood or interpreted differently.
And postmodernist theories (while ridiculed as ‘everything goes’) are a
cautious reminder that positing something without providing context is to
either leave one’s audience with confusion, or to have done nothing helpful at
all in a functionalist sense.
If our intellectuals aren’t consistent or functionally
honest in their intellectual outputs, then we can’t wonder much as to why our
‘intellectual journey’ doesn’t lead to ‘a coherent political ideology!’ It’s
informed by politics rather that facts!
Citations
1. Beswick, Stephanie
(2004) Sudan’s Bloody Memory: The Legacy
of Slavery, Ethnicity and war in South Sudan, Rochester, University of
Rochester
2. Corrales, Roman (2007) The Leadership Relationship, Quenzon
City, Katha Publishing Co. Inc.
3. El
Sammani, Osman Mohammed (1984) Dynamic of
the Planned Change in the Twic Area, Berkshire: Ithaca Press
4. Kelley, Raymond Case
(1985) The Nuer Conquest: The Structure and Development of an Expansionists
System, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press
5. Krasner,
Stephen D. (1999) Sovereignty: Organized
Hypocrisy, Princeton, University Press
6.
Nyaba, Adwok (2014)
Our intellectual journey towards a coherent political ideology, South Sudan Nation, December 30 < http://www.southsudannation.com/our-intellectual-journey-towards-a-coherent-political-ideology/>
7. Scroggins, Deborah
(2004) Emma’s War, New York: Vintage
Books
8. Thatcher, Peter. (2013), Leading
by Example, Bookboon.com (Kindle)
9.
Van
Geenen, Erwin w.G. M (2004) Knowledge structures and the usability of knowledge
systems, Delft, Eburon
10. Willes, Charles,
Armine (1995) Upper Nile Province Hand
Book: A Report on People and Government in Southern Sudan, Oxford: University
Press
