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