What Commissioner Kalisto can learn from Governor Kuel Aguer

Left: Care-taker Commissioner of Juba County, Mr. Kalisto Ladu.
Right: Former Governor of Northern Bahr El Ghazal, Mr. Kuel Aguer Kuel.

On October 6, 2026, the Caretaker Commissioner of Juba Country, Mr. Kalisto Ladu, threatened to ban foreigners from South Sudan's informal economy and retail businesses. 

Speaking in Juba Arabi, he said foreigners should not leave their countries and come to South Sudan only to sell chapati, onions and tomatoes by kilos in the streets. "What will our South Sudanese women do?" he asked.

He warned that no foreigners should engage at the lowest levels of the South Sudan's informal economy. 

In my conversation in January 2026 with former Governor of Northern Bahr El Ghazal, Mr. Kuel Aguer Kuel, we spoke about the kind of the informal economy Mr. Kalisto was referring to. 

Governor Kuel said: 

"When I was  governor, I went and I found these ladies making tea, selling vegetables, selling greens, and they were being taxed.

And I made a decision that they should not be taxed because these are people who want to survive. You bring firewood to the market to sell so that you buy sugar for your children and you are taxed from this. I say, “ no, no”. There is a certain income that is taxed. So these ladies should not be taxed. Let them develop, even the tea ladies.

They develop from tea to have restaurants. And when they have restaurants, wm ask them…to have license and we will be able to take taxes from then.

But if we start taxing them from tea, they will remain in the tea and they will not be able to come into conventional economy. So this informal economy is a school where people are trained to join the conventional economy. Because otherwise...you will destroy them and they will go out of business." 

Kuel added:

"They need even to be supported if they have plans. By then I wanted to talk to Dr. Alic Garang  [former governor of South Sudan's Central of South Sudan] to come and sit with them to ask them what would they do if they get more money so that we can put money in a commercial bank and then we ask them to get loan from it. We guaranteed their loans from government money so that they can take loan and do their business whatever they want to do and they will be returning.

If they default, then the government will be able to pay that because there is a risk of course. Because some of these women, they don't have land. So there will be no collateral. So the collateral will be the government. You give them up to about $500, $600, whatever they want to do with that amount of money. And government will grant you.

If they don't pay it back, the government will be able to do it. And they should be put in the books of a minister of commerce in the state. And then they are followed up. How are they growing? What are the difficulties they are facing? And then you help them. You will have local people to help them in planning, to help them in how they deal with issues until they become business people and they grow up. So this is the way you deal with informal because when somebody try to get into business, it has got entrepreneurial scheme and they need to be supported so that he become a big entrepreneur in the future. Yeah."

Commissioner Kalisto's call, however, infuriated South Sudanese who disapproved of what he said. They thought it was not carefully thought out. 

One commentator even accused him of being an attention-seeker.

Kalisto's call also caused uneasiness across the border as the foreigners he was referring to are from the neighboring countries. 

Hon. Rebecca Kadaga, Uganda's Minister of East African Affairs, asked for fairness in laws and policies restricting Uganda traders and businesses in South Sudan. She noted that South Sudan has a bilateral agreement with Uganda.  

While Mr. Kalisto's call cannot be dismissed entirely, many still believed he could have been more careful. A blanket call to bank foreigners from engaging in small business activities may fuel the xenophobic sentiments we have seen over the last few years in South Africa. 

The approach Governor Kuel took is something Commissioner Kalisto should adopt. This can make South Sudanese small businesses competitive. 

Fortunately, Mr. Kalisto has since clarified his statement. He said that "There is nothing about sending foreigners out of South Sudan. There is nothing about prohibiting foreigners from business. There is nothing about hating foreigners."

This is important in assuaging xenophobic fears.

However, the commissioner added that "If we can just leave our people like that, without also protecting them in business, then we will be committing negligence."

This is also useful. It is the kind of protection Governor Kuel provided to the informal sector. 

Since small businesses are the engine of the country, it is important that the citizens are the ones who dominant the small business environment. The economy suffers if the engine of the economy are foreigners who can leave the country anytime for one reason or another. 

Unfortunately, the business climate in South Sudan is dominated by foreigners. So Commissioner Kalisto's statement while crass, was based on lived reality of the citizens. 

However, it is also not the fault of foreigners. They saw a lucrative business opportunity and climate in South Sudan, however small. They utilized it. 

They also had the entrepreneurial and business skills many South Sudanese did not have because many of them lived outside the country in refugee camps for decades.

What South Sudan and Juba County needs is a legal, clear and streamlined strategy to help South Sudan improve their entrepreneurial and business management skills. 

Governor Kuel provides one best practice. 

This would allow them to complete with Kenyans, Ethiopians, Eritreans, Ugandans, Somalis and other African business people and traders in South Sudan. 

Over-time, South Sudanese may fairly dominate the business environment in their own country. 

For now, Commissioner Kalisto needs to exercise care in his public statements. He is someone who is fond of making controversial statements. Some of his statements are justified while others were not. 

For now, he needs to be more circumspect and provide economically found strategies to support onions, tea and tomato leaders. This would make them, as Governor Kuel has said "trained to join the conventional economy."

____

By the Editor

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.

South Sudan needs statesmen, not succession seekers

 By Bil Riar*

Photo: Courtesy of the author's Facebook account

While President Salva Kiir is outside the country receiving medical treatment, South Sudan should be asking itself a much bigger question: Why does the absence of one man immediately create a race among others to position themselves for power?

Is leadership in South Sudan truly about serving the Republic, or has it become a competition over who will inherit the seat of power?

If every time the President leaves the country, individuals begin calculating how they can take over, then we must ask ourselves whether we have built a government based on institutions—or one based on personalities.

 President Kiir has spent decades at the center of South Sudan's political system. Whether one agrees with his leadership or not, the reality is that he has often had to manage competing political, military, and personal interests around him.

 But there is a lesson for everyone around him: A leader who constantly fears betrayal will never fully trust those who appear more interested in his position than in the survival of the Republic.

And that is where today's leaders must look at themselves.

 Instead of asking, “When can I take over?”, every responsible leader should be asking: “What can I do today to make South Sudan stronger when the current President is no longer in office?”

That is the difference between a politician and a statesman.

 South Sudan does not need men who become courageous only when the President is absent. It needs men and women who can think independently, govern responsibly, and defend the constitutional order regardless of who is sitting in J1 [Juba 1].

And this message should not be reduced to Warrap, to Jieeng leadership, or to any particular community.

This is a national question.

 No tribe should be blamed for the failures of individual politicians. No community should be treated as the property of one political faction. South Sudan belongs to all its citizens.

 If the current generation truly wants to leave a legacy, then it must stop thinking only about who will replace Kiir and start thinking about what kind of country will exist after Kiir.

Power is temporary.

The Republic is permanent.

The chair in J1 is not the destiny of South Sudan. South Sudan itself is the destiny.

So let every leader ask himself or herself honestly: If tomorrow I am given the highest office in the land, do I have the vision to unite the country, the courage to protect its people, and the humility to serve rather than rule?

If the answer is "no", then the ambition to take over should end today.

 South Sudan does not need another race for the chair. It needs a generation of statesmen capable of carrying the nation beyond the personalities of its current leaders.

___

*Comrade Bil Riar, Son of Warrap State.

Editorial Note: The views expressed in this article belong solely to the author and not TPR. 

Being non-partisan and being neutral: The tenuous distinction that frustrates many

I am non-partisan. I am not neutral. Many people find this strange, even frustrating. I don't blame them. Being non-partisan should be strange to people who don't understand it from a personalized perspective I will explain here. 

I am going to make a distinction between being neutral and being non-partisan. This distinction is going to sound like what philosophers call a distinction without a difference. But hear me out. 

This is important. 

For many people, being "non-partisan" is synonymous with being "neutral" when issues with serious moral implications are being discussed. For instance, a neutral person would not blame one party to the conflict without blaming the other party. To remain neutral, the neutral person or organization must find something to praise or criticize on both sides. 

For many people, this is prudent. It ensures the neutral person or organization maintains the neutrality status. We see this necessary official neutrality with the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), the African Union (AU), IGAD,  troika countries (Norway, USA and UK), for instance. 

In most of their press releases or press conferences, they consistently "urge all parties to the conflict" to either "show restraint", "protect civilians" or "implement the agreement." They avoid addressing one party at a time. Adopting this approach is maintained most of the time even when they know that only one party to the agreement or conflict is  to blame. 

That's the general understanding and approach to neutrality. 

But I think this approach and understanding can be problematic. It can make some parties minimize the societal impact of their mistakes. 

But this is the standard language and approach diplomats use. It is not meant to lead to a solution, necessarily. Its primary aim is to maintain a modicum of positive working relationship between sovereign states. There is a critical diplomatic point beyond which diplomats don't tread. Unless they do not hold the host country in high regard or they do not care about diplomatic any consequences. 

As we have seen regarding the involvement of the regional and international bodies in Sudan and South Sudan, the success of agreements does not depend on the mediators per se. Not really. It depends on the quality of the leaderships of the warring parties or peace partners. For instance, the comprehensive peace agreement (CPA) that was signed in 2005 between SPLM and NCP succeeded not because of IGAD and General Lazaro Sumbeiywo, necessarily. Its success depended very much on the leadership of John Garang of SPLA and Ustaz Ali Osman Taha. 

This is not to take away from the incredible work of General Sumbeiyo and IGAD. But their role, as we would witness with the Agreement on the resolution of conflict in South Sudan (ARCISS), could not produce the same results as the CPA because of lack of a serious leadership with which mediators could work. The friendly relationship developed by Dr. John Garang and Ustaz Taha could not be replicated by Dr. Riek Machar and President Salva Kiir.

The neutrality we witness among regional and international parties in South Sudan is a face-serving mechanism. It is not meant to find a solution. It is meant to ensure a peaceful working relationship that serves the interest of the diplomatic mission is maintained. 

To me, being non-partisan and being neutral are not the same. Being non-partisan means I am not beholden to stand by and defend what a given political entity or organization stands for. Political parties will defend their positions by emphasizing their achievements and downplaying their mistakes or failures. You will never find a political entity that focuses on their mistakes and airs them to the public. Even when a political party admits its mistakes and failures, it will ensure it puts a strong emphasis on their achievements in order to overshadow their failures. 

However, opposition political entities will only focus on the failures of other parties. They will either ignore or downplay the achievements of the party they are opposing. This is where I am different. And this is where I need to emphasize how being non-partisan and being neutral should be considered different by South Sudanese and others. 

Let me give an example from South Sudan. I do not have any political allegiance to SPLM-IG and SPLM-IO. And I don't have any principled opposition to them either. I criticize them wherever they make mistakes and praise them whether they do what in my opinion is good for the people of South Sudan. But I do not do what IGAD, Troika, UNMISS and others do. I don't criticize them equally to maintain neutrality. That flies on the face of social reality. 

When SPLM-IO commits atrocities against civilians, I criticize them without looking for ways to also criticize SPLM-IG in order to be considered "neutral". A neutral person or party either refrains from criticizing at all, or finds something to criticize in SPLM-IG before they make their criticism of SPLM-IO public. I don't do that. I criticize SPLM-IO without worrying about whether nor not they will consider me pro-SPLM-IG. I don't worry about being seen as having compromised neutrality.

I also criticize SPLM-IG when it makes mistakes or commit atrocities through the national army, SSPDF. I don't need to bring in SPLM-IO all the time unless SPLM-IO has also committed atrocities in the same conflict. I don't worry that SPLM-IG will characterize me as pro-SPLM-IO. In fact some do. But that doesn't worry me. 

So I can criticize one party at a time. I do not need to think about being neutral. My position is based on what is good or bad for the people of South Sudan and the world. I don't have to worry about what a given political or military party thinks. So I can also agree with SPLM-IO or SPLM-IG as long as I believe what they are saying or doing at that given time is good for the people of South Sudan. 

So when I agree with SPLM-IO's position, it is very easy for people to conflate that agreement with partisan allegiance. I have also seen that members of SPLM-IO have mistaken my agreement with them as my allegiance to SPLM-IO. SPLM-IG members and President Kiir supporters have also mistaken this agreement to be my support for SPLM-IO. 

No. I base my criticism or praise on what I believe is good for the people of South Sudan and other vulnerable people of the world. 

It is also important to note that being a critic of the government puts a person most of the time in the same column of critics with the opposition. A writer or a person engaged in any activist or journalistic work will try most of the time to hold the government or the incumbent leadership accountable more it holds the opposition accountable. This is because the government makes more consequential decisions than the opposition. 

The main difference is that the opposition will find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to entertain the achievements of the party they oppose or the ruling party. They try as much as possible to find something to criticize or critique in the other party's achievements. It would defeat the purpose of being an opposition if they focus on what is good for the people if it goes against their party interest.

Parties do not prioritize people. They prioritize their political and ideological interest. But they use people as selling points and cover.

So when I say  "I am not partisan", I do not mean "I am neutral." I can spend a week criticizing one party without criticizing other parties if I believe the party I am criticizing is being more destructive to the people of South Sudan. This means I am not neutral in this case. But I am still non-partisan. That in itself does not mean I have joined the parties I have not criticized for a week. Time comes when I focus on their mistakes and praise the party I previously criticized.  Neutral people do not do that. 

So when I say "I am non-partisan" on my social media platforms or on #KuirthiyTV, this is what I mean. 

___

Kuir ë Garang (PhD) is the editor of The Philosophical Refugee and the host of KuirthiyTV. 

The Troika should up the ante against Juba if their words are to have any meaning in the lives of South Sudanese

Lately, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States, commonly known as "Troika" in Sudan and South Sudan in the context of peace, have been talking...and talking...and talking...a lot. 

This has not always been the case. They have been, since the mid-1990s during the North-South war in Sudan, action-oriented  

Today, with embassies in Juba, all they do is issue ineffective press releases or statements. That is all. Necessarily diplomatic, yes. But what does that do for South Sudanese? Nothing.

For any change to materialize in South Sudan, the incumbent leadership must be subjected to something that would make it petrified. So far, nothing of the kind has been availed. Virtually nothing.

Targeted sanctions have not worked. Arms embargo has not worked. External pressure has not work. 

On July 3, 2026, Mr. Michael Adler, the US ambassador to Juba said words that continue to make me scratch my head. They make me scratch my head not because they are untrue. No. They make me shake my head because they have become platitudes. 

Here Ambassador Adler:

The topography of corruption: Mr. James Deng Wal Achien and lack of accountability and transparency in the multi-million dollar J1 construction project

By the Editor*

 

"On perusal, the process was not carried out in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Public Procurement and Disposal of Asset Act, 2018 by conducting competitive tendering so that value for money could be obtained and cost reduced." Moulana Filberto Mayuot Mareng, March 25, 2022 (letter)

Photo: Government of South Sudan

The construction at South Sudan's State House, commonly known as Juba One (J1), has resumed. "The J1 project," according to the office of the president, was "ordered back into motion by President Kiir after a high-level meeting with the Oversight Committee."  

This project is causing some concerns among some people in South Sudan because of lack of transparency. While the government departments and officials involved in the project between 2021 and 2026 are aware of the details, the South Sudanese public only knows there is a construction project at J1.

Given the importance of J1 to the South Sudanese sovereignty and nationhood, there are many questions the office of the president should answer for the sake of transparency and accountability. 

The documents

 Using documentary sources from a source whose identity will not be revealed here for security reasons, this article explains why the construction is causing some concerns. The documents were forwarded to me by a concerned South Sudanese living in Juba. Concerned about the possibility that "The J1 project"  is a front for the siphoning of public funds, the individual believes the public needs to know some details about the project and the people involved in it. 

I have reached out to the office of the president, the ministry of information and the some officials involved but I have not heard back from them. I will update this article should any details change. 

Issues of concern

There are a number of issues that should concern the public. It is of course up to the office of the president to address them transparently. Unfortunately, transparency and accountability are institutional requirements South Sudanese officials ignore or disdain. They are apparently beneath them. 

The first issue of concern is the nature of the contract between the office of the president and "Rams Civil Works and Engineering Consultant Ltd" (Here after RAMS), drafted on April 8th, 2022. 

Note that the company sometimes writes the name as "RAMS for Civil Work and Engineering Consultant Ltd." The reader should also not that this South Sudanese [RAMS] company should not be confused with RAM Civil Engineering, a Canadian company. I want to make that clear. 

Doc. 1

Is Adut Salva Kiir a proverbial wolf in a sheep's clothing?

President Salva (left) and Adut Salva Kiir (Right)

When Adut Salva Kiir was appointed President Kiir's special envoy for special programs in August of 2025, many of us received her appointment with high hope. We overlooked the nepotistic element. We had good reason. She promised to be different. What stood out for me was her promise to South Sudanese Gen Zs and all the voiceless South Sudanese.

 At the time Kenyan Gen Zs were protesting the high cost of living in Kenya.  She duly told South Sudanese young people that they had the right to express their grievances without fear of reprisal. That was the first time a high-ranking official had said something like that. Protests are taboo in South Sudan. For the powers that be, protests reek of revolution. 

But Adut appeared different, almost presidential. She pledged with that beguiling soft-spoken voice that she is

"representing those who served our nation. I'm representing the vulnerable. I'm representing those that have unspoken voices. I'm representing our fathers, their struggle. I'm representing a nation that had high hopes. And I don't take it lightly." 

How could one not like that?

There was good reason to hope that Adut would be strategically and politically different. She had lived in Australia, a relatively freer society, a society in which institutionalism and the rule of law are very accented. She appeared to know the value of reasonable disagreements and the logic of political and civil space. She even said she would have "an open-door policy. You can come to my office and I will listen." 

There is more. 

And more importantly, she said she was "open to criticism as well. I may not like it all, but I will take it in." 

It seemed like the dawn of a new day. But we were too optimistic.

Private reports and social media engagements by people very close to the first family and J1 informants are painting a different picture. Adut was only wearing a mask of amiability, of magnanimity. 

As things stand now, Adut, it seems, is no longer interested in service provision and national development. She wants to be Adut the wielder of unbridled power, an unaccountable power. 

She has been, apparently, sucked into power politics. She is no longer someone who is interested in changing South Sudan for better. She is interested in power as South Sudan's heiress apparent. 

Mabior Riiny Lual, a former MP in the South Sudan's transitional legislative assembly as an opposition figure, wrote on his Facebook account on May 25 that Adut was about to have herself decreed into office as Vice President for economic cluster and the first deputy chairperson of SPLM, the ruling party in South Sudan. 

This means she would replace Dr. James Wani Igga. Vice President Wani is now the first deputy chairperson of SPLM and the Vice President in charge of economic cluster.

This means the SPLM and the presidency would be led by father and daughter. But there seems to be an obstacle to her ascendancy. 

In my recent conversation with Mabior on KuirthiyTV, Mabior also mentioned that Adut is the one who does not want the former Vice President, Dr. Benjamin Bol Mel, to be released from detention. According to Mabior, Adut threatened to commit suicide if Dr. Bol Mel is released.

In South Sudan the problem is the system, not capacity or the character of the people.

Photo: ICRC Audio Visual Archives

The youth in South Sudan have no people-centered mentorship. As things stand now, they have been introduced to development-retarding systems of self-enrichment. The system is tribalist, militarist, elitist, and neo-patrimonial.  

This is paucity of leadership. In The Trouble With Nigeria, Chinua Achebe noted aptly that:

 "The trouble with Nigeria is simply and squarely a failure of leadership. There is nothing basically wrong with the Nigerian character. There is nothing wrong with the Nigerian land or climate or water or air or anything else. The Nigerian problem is the unwillingness or inability ofits leaders to rise to the responsibility, to the challenge of personal example which are the hallmarks of true leadership." 

What Achebe said of Nigeria is also true of South Sudan today. But South Sudan has excellent leaders, or potentially excellent leaders.

 The main challenge is that these leaders are not given the chance to show what they can do. Some have been fenced off completely from government positions. Others have been decreed into offices and then removed without enough time to operationalize their institutional agenda. 

The problem in South Sudan, therefore, is the system.

As I have stressed, and I have discussed this extensively with guests on KuirthiyTV, the problem in South Sudan is not lack of capacity, necessarily. The problem is lack of an institutional set-up that can make South Sudanese with skills show what they can provide in the context of state-building.  Lack of capacity is a short-term problem. 

A state that is serious about development and provision of services to the its people can make use of human capital within and outside the country. Provisionally, the government can hire experts from foreign countries to help with capacity building until the local work force is able to take over successfully and efficiently.

So capacity isn't the main problem. The paucity of leadership is the main problem. 

Those in charge of decision-making in the country see those with skills as threats. Governance and leadership has  become about what the elite can get not how the country and her people can benefit. 

This attitude has made vital institutions that make the country functional in the interest of the people virtually useless in South Sudan. The media is basically toothless. The parliament is either the president's rubber stamp, or it utterly ineffectual. The security sector has become a military wing of the ruling party, SPLM. It's political. And in some cases, it becomes tribalized. 

Such a system feeds avariciously on neo-patrimonialism and elitist reciprocity. Outside this system, no one matters. You either support this system or you look away from their entrenched siphoning of resources. 

It is therefore unnecessary for decision-makers to employ people with effective skills and a good moral compass; those who cannot give in to graft and corruption to advance their political and economic future.

Good leaders are disruptive to graft systems and neo-patrimonialism. What President Kiir  rationalizes as a search for the right person to fix the failure of the economy in South Sudan is rather a rejection of potential system disruptors. 

The problem in South Sudan is not only self-inflicted; it continues to be exacerbated by the very leaders who created it. 

What is tragic is that those who created this crisis do not suffer the consequences of their decisions, or indecisions. There is therefore no incentives for them to fix the economy, security and ethnic relations for South Sudan to prosper. 

The youth and the younger generation are therefore being introduced to a culture that will make changing the trajectory of development nearly impossible. 

____________________

Kuir ë Garang (PhD) is the editor of The Philosophical Refugee.