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:

South Sudan needs peace, reconciliation and healing - NOw

Photo: South Sudan Eagle Media

South Sudanese have not known peace. They've only known war. This is almost becoming the national culture. When they are not suffering from deadly, internecine ethnic feuds, then they are suffering from state brutalization or neglect.

Even the period after the 1972 Addis Ababa Peace Agreement, which was supposed to be peaceful, was not entirely so. The elite, instead of taking advantage of the relative autonomy in the interest of the people, they turned the regional government into a theatre of mindless elitism (see Elijah Malok's book) and ethnicized politics. Service provision became secondary.

Today, the government of the day has a chance. It has all the trappings of a conventional government, at least structurally speaking. Functionally, that is a different conversation.

But there is no denying that we are way passed the failed state stage. We are in an anarchic stage. There is no order. The massacre of Nuer civilians in Ayod, Northern Jonglei by the lawless, undisciplined SSPDF (who seem to have turned the national army into, largely, an ethnic army), the recent massacre of over 200 Jieeng civilians in Ruweng Administrative Area by armed Nuer youth from Unity State, and the recent inter-ethnic massacre of civilians in Terekeka in Central Equatoria, are examples of such anarchy.

Something must change!

A recent warning by Hon. Pagan Amum of Real-SPLM of the risk of genocide is tragically coming true. Things should not continue this way.

But there is no government in place, really. There is even no one in power. The recent categorization by Hon. Lual Dau of United People's Alliance of the four competing, anti-people centers of power is one illustration of such political anomie and lack of a genuine, people-centered power center. These power centers are all rent seekers, red in the face with graft and corruption!

What we have is power struggle. It's chaotic. But things look orderly and calm from the elite's perspective. Their photo-ops with foreign dignitaries give them the impression they are successful leaders engaged in state-building.

The powers that be in South Sudan are not affected. Their families are safe. They get money through informal, neo-patrimonial channels of clientelism. The recent mass of arrests wasn't an anti-corruption and anti-graft campaign. It was clientelism betrayed within the graft brotherhood and sisterhood. No honor among thieves, they say!

The majority is suffering. South Sudanese are slaves in their own country, worked for free by their own leaders. Liberators!

What South Sudan needs now is not needless ethnic divisiveness. What we need is a serious leadership to accept PEACE unconditionally; and then launch a HEALING and RECONCILIATION agenda.

We need a people-centered leadership who can travel the country, even at the risk of their lives, to reconcile the people.

South Sudan is a failed state, par excellence. It is now risking a total self-destruction as ethnic groups have no law and order structure and relations.

__________

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

The dangers of uncritical ethnic allegiance

 

Photo: Mercy Corps

By the Editor

In this address at the 39th Ordinary meeting of African heads of state, President Salva Kiir Mayardit of South Sudan pledged to restore peace to South Sudan.

This is going to be a tall order. The president has been making similar pledges for the last decade. Yet peace remains illusive for the people of South Sudan. What we witness today is the withdrawal into ethnic bases. This is putting civilians and the country at risk. Northern Jonglei State has become a battle ground. Civilians have been displaced, some killed.

But it all begins with the political elite.

But South Sudanese civilians have been caught up in the middle of a war with which they have nothing. Elite start their disagreement over power and political ambitions but then end up passing the suffering to the people. Elite don't suffer the consequences of their actions. They benefit from it. This is South Sudan.

Yet, the very people who are affected by elite selfish actions still stand by these elite. Why? In-group bias as a function of ethnic belonging. Civilians will support political leaders from ethnic group even when these leaders do absolutely nothing for the people. This is the case even when these leaders have in the past put them at risk.

South Sudanese elite therefore stir up the crisis knowing that they will bank on their ethnic basis as a default position. They don't have to say or do anything for their ethnic groups to support them. Political differences among the elite is therefore transformed wittily into an ethnic problem and then to a survivalist issue. "Support us or tribe X will exterminates you!" 

Peace will therefore remain illusive unless South Sudanese unite across ethnic lines. 

In my recent conversation with Dr. Gatluak Thach, two issues emerged. Signing another peace agreement with President Kiir will be tricky because the president has shown that he's not interested in respecting any agreement. On the other hand, war is also not an option. It leads to more suffering and death. It also allows President Kiir, who has turned the country into an authoritarian system, to re-entrench himself. 

Peace and war are therefore both difficult, though not impossible. 

But the most important solution is for the people of South Sudan to stare realizing that the problem is not the people themselves. Tribes are not the problem. Leaders using tribe to gain support are the problem. They should therefore start rejecting leaders who turn South Sudanese against each other.

Will Divine Guidance Rescue South Sudan from Turmoil?

Photo: Radio Tamazuj

There is nothing wrong with having a "national prayer" day. The problem with the government of South Sudan is that it has started to misappropriate religion for political ends. This is exactly what Khartoum's Islamic elite did with Islam. They misappropriated Islam as a political instrument for the subjugation of non-Muslims in Sudan.

Since Khartoum elite from the 1950s have used religion as a power instrument, South Sudanese have countered the imposition of Islam with what nearly borders on Christian fundamentalism. It was, in most cases, for a good reason. But it's now getting misused without any useful social value to the people of South Sudan.

The colonial regimes, with their colonial anthropology, the most compromised of disciplines as late Congolese philosopher V. Y. Mudimbe once argued, did not believe Africans had any religion on the same level with Islam and Christianity. Embracing both Christianity and Islam by South Sudanese was therefore a way to get global recognition.

 Being proselytized into Islam and Christianity was instrumental to South Sudanese and the religious regimes that converted them. It won them the support of western Christendom in the 1960s and the 1990s. 

Today, however, these foreign religions have become integral to the South Sudanese social and cultural fabric. They are no longer foreign religions. 

So when President Salva Kiir of South Sudanese recently called a National Prayer Breakfast, many South Sudanese appreciated it. However, there are many South Sudanese who took offense. Religion in South Sudan seems to have become an instrument for political and social blackmail. It has become a convenient tool the president uses to keep the hungry and destitute populace passive, zombified. 

For many South Sudanese, prayers cannot fix national issues. It will not pay salaries that have not been paid consistently for nearly two years now. Security situation has deteriorated, the economy is in taters, the agreement has been virtually abrogated, and the main signatory to the peace agreement (First Vice President Riek Machar) is undergoing an unnecessary court proceedings. 

These cannot be fixed by prayers. They need leadership from President Kiir. 

A national day of prayer could have been a day of forgiveness with President Kiir leading by example. But he does not. He prioritizes what serves him. He calls on South Sudanese to reject "tribalism, hatred" and embrace "reconciliation." 

However, opposition have noted that this day would have had a meaningful religious significance. Dut Majokdit, a senior political figure in SPLM-IO of Dr. Riek Machar noted that "For this country to realize national reconciliation, it must start from the top leadership." 

This is important. It is important for President Kiir to call South Sudanese to reconcile. But he must also start by reconciling with Dr. Riek Machar, his arch political enemy. 

Edmund Yakani, a prominent South Sudanese civil society leader, echoed Majokdit's words: "We wish the speech of the President could have broken the ground for real forgiveness and reconciliation."

Meaning the human, rather than the divine aspect of the national prayer has a greater chance of bringing stability to South Sudan. Divine guidance is useful only if leaders take initiative on behalf of the people. But when prayers are called only to engage in needless self-absolution, then religion becomes a convenient political tool. 

Reconciliation and forgiveness should not be something others do. It should also be a component of the South Sudanese governance structure. As French deconstructionist and post-modernist philosopher, Jacque Derrida, has noted, what we should give is not just the forgivable but also the unforgivable. 

It is not the divine that will fix South Sudan. It is the human design. 

_______________________

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

 

Mabior Garang Mabior: Practice respect, humility and service to the people

Photo: Courtesy of Mabior Garang's Facebook account

I wish Mabior Garang Mabior luck in his new ministerial role. It's a trying role in a trying environment; but he seems prepared and skilled. That is the nature of the system in South Sudan.

But I have a message for Mabior. For those of you with long-writings-phobia, skip this. Do something better with your time!

I urge him to be a little humble. Being John Garang's son doesn't give him a special epistemic position or a socio-political weight above and beyond what the people are prepared to stomach. Twi supports him, Jonglei supports him, and South Sudan supports him. He's one voice, one mind. Let him remember that!

Meaning his ministerial stature after Kiir's decrees come knocking will depend not on being Garang's son. It will depend very much on what he achieves and how he treats people. Not people who pander to him but also those who disagree with him. We know his achievements aren't going to be many (if any) given the anomic system within which he's going to work in South Sudan.

However, being John Garang's son matters. While Mabior is revered for his wit and individual decisions he has made, making him apparently a man of his own, we cannot downplay the role of his larger-than-life father regarding how Mabior is perceived by the powers that be and by the lay public. Garang's Mabior's name opens doors, inspires respect and, sometimes, terror. This is not only the nature of human relations in South Sudan. Name recognition applies all over the world.

This also means being Garang's son should come with a considered and considerate responsibility. The sons and daughters of "no bodies" he is wont to make fun of on his Facebook comments and statuses are watching. They may not seem much to Mabior, but leadership necessitates that he perceives them, and respond to them, as amounting to more than he is willing to entertain. The average civilian in South Sudan expects this.

A question of principles. Mabior left President Kiir for Riek Machar's rebellion because of how President Kiir ran the system aground. Mabior was right. Yet he came back to the same Kiir when the country under president Kiir is in a much terrible state. He now, somehow obsequiously, supports President Kiir. What has changed? South Sudan is worse than when Mabior was Kiir's staunch critic.

Granted, political alliances change. Commonsense. But alliances should change with one's principles not majorly compromised. Otherwise, one risks becoming a political entrepreneur, making South Sudan what Achille Mbembe has called an economic system of reciprocity.

As a political leader of some import in South Sudan, Mabior should start providing answers, respectful and respectable answers, than his usual dismissive, abrasive slights. He carries the weight of a legacy, if not the legacy (with a capital "L") whether he likes it or not.

Humility. When Mabior told Mading Ngor of Terab Media that he didn't join Dr. Riek, that Dr. Riek joined him, I knew Mabior was an intellectual, his father's son. But the political implication of the statement left me scratching my head. I started to doubt his political humility in an ethnically diverse country.

While Mabior sounded political and witty, he was very arrogant in that statement. Mabior didn't form any formal political or rebel movement before the crisis of 2013 in South Sudan to say Dr. Riek Joined him.

Yes, his joining Dr. Riek was considered scandalous by the likes of Mading Ngor. Therefore, Mabior had to distance himself from Dr. Riek's legacy without distancing himself. It was a hard sell. It was a double-edged sword. It shows how less Mabior thinks of others, even political leaders with whom he agrees.

I admire Mabior’s intellect and eloquence. No doubt. He's also informed. He reads, unlike some "intellectuals" I know. I admire his drive. This is something the younger generation in South Sudan needs now. He can inspire.

But Mabior Garang has one problem. Hubris. I'm not sure if it is a personality issue or it is because he is Garang's son. Otherwise, Mabior needs to treat the sons and daughters of nobodies of South Sudan with respect and humility.

______

Kuir ë Garang (PhD) is the editor of TPR.

Dr. Jok Madut and Dr. Aldo Ajou say Bol Mel is not President Kiir’s heir apparent

 

Dr. Jok Madut (left), Dr. Bol Mel (middle) and Dr. Aldo Ajou Deng (right)

The social media statements by Dr. Jok Madut and Dr. Uncle Aldo Ajou are confusing. I think they will have to explain the following to South Sudanese.

Dr. Jok said that what is being discussed about Bol Mel is based on assumptions and hatred of the man. He also said that Bol Mel has not expressed any desire to replace Kiir. And that Kiir has not said he's preparing Bol Mel to replace him. I will give Dr. Jok the benefit of the doubt because he shared these views on social media where most of us are not always serious and measured when sharing our views.  

I have come to know Dr. Jok as far more sophisticated and self-aware than the status being referenced reveals.

Here is my dilemma. I’m not sure if Jok is saying that for us to accept the argument that Bol Mel regards himself as the heir apparent to President Kiir then he must say explicitly, "I want to replace President Kiir!"?

I will wait for Dr. Jok to explain himself. Bol Mel will have to be a complete dodo to say publicly he will replace President Kiir!

No!

Bol Mel has shown a meticulous ruthlessness, a systematicity of a miskiin sekin! The English calls such a person a silent killer.

Also, there is never a case where politicians are clear about their intentions. Facts and politicians are like Trump and Truth, water and oil!

Since Bol Mel was decreed in, he's been like Kiir's right-hand man. He stood beside President Kiir when the man from Kampala came to South Sudan. He was the one sent to Ethiopia to smooth things over with the New Flower [Addis Ababa] after J1 prioritized the man from Kampala over Dr. Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia.

When he was appointed VP, Bol verbally, explicitly targeted Riek Machar, a member of the presidency. He also asked Madam Nyandeeng not to abandon Kiir! I'm not sure what he meant by that! He also mentioned that he would get involved in security issues. We must ask ourselves why?

Now, Riek is in detention and Upper Nile and Jonglei are conflagrations. That Bol Mel may be Kiir's successor is more of a presumption than an assumption. Enter Bol Mel as VP and boom! there is money for salary! This is what late Steve Jobs called connecting "the dots moving backwards."

How about Uncle Dr. Aldo?

He said Kiir cannot just make Bol Mel his successor, arguing that SPLM has succession structures. He's kidding, right?

Is it not the same Kiir who embarrassed Kuol Manyang, imposed Peter Lam Both and then tossed him, demoted Wani Igga to Secretary General and then made Bol Mel one of the deputy chairs of the SPLM? Did anyone in the SPLM make a whimpering sound?

Note this. If the president goes abroad for state visits, article 1.6 section 1.6.4 of the Revitalized Peace Agreement says that the first vice president becomes the acting president on a temporary basis. When both the president and the first vice president are absent, the president appoint one of the four vice presidents as acting president.  

Since Riek is now in detention, let’s see who President Kiir would appoint as acting president. Vice President Nyandeeng? Vice President Josephine Lagu? Vice president Taban Deng Gai?

We will see…

Note that section 1.6.5 says that if the president is mentally or physically incapacitated then the next president will be selected by the party of the president. Dr. Riek cannot become president through the revitalized agreement of 2018. Perhaps Uncle Doctor has a point here. If SPLM leaders are no longer afraid of Kiir then they may ignore his wishes and pretend SPLM has structures to respect.

But Kiir is, we are told, not physically and mentally incapacitated now. When it comes to succession, please don’t try Kiir! Try Kiir...just try...!

So Uncle Aldo is saying Kiir will, somehow, respect rules, laws and regulations when it comes to who is to succeed him? Come on Uncle Doctor! Has anyone ever defied Kiir? Pagan, Nyandeeng and Riek did! Where are they now? Madam Nyandeeng is protected by the ghost and the liberation aura of John Garang. She became VP through G [X] not through Kiir’s SPLM.

Uncle Doctor also said that we cannot blame Bol Mel for the corruption inherent in awarding contracts. Bol Mel is just a businessman, he said. Is this an implicit endorsement of corruption?

So Bol Mel is our VP but we should not hold him legally and morally accountable? Is that what we are now supposed to expect from our public officials? "Blame the government! I knew there was corruption but what did you expect me to do?"

Folks, Bol Mel is a public figure, for better or for worse. Allow us to unpack his public life! He comes with violence and money…and the slick, efficient smoothness of a high-end gigolo!


____________

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

A tribe called SPLA masquerading as South Sudanese

First Vice President Riek Machar and President Salva Kiir Mayardit

____

I know President Kiir, most of the time, says the RIGHT thing but does the WRONG thing. While he can incite tribalism sometimes, he tends to sound like a leader once in a while. Check his Independence Day speech. At times he says the right thing to the people of South Sudan.

His actions, however, are most of the time contrary to what could be called leadership.

But credit where due. His call for calm is the right thing at the moment. I have been saying this over the last two decades: that President Kiir should always come out and address the country anytime there is a national tragedy and speak to the people of South Sudan.

There is something calming about words from the head of state. Leadership is a psycho-social reality.

Honorable Michael Makuei, the Minister of Information and the government spokesperson, calms no one down. Well, maybe a few South Sudanese find his condescending press statements calming. South Sudan is a country bereft of leadership. 

He talks with a princely I-will-say-what-I-want-so-what-the-hell-will-you-do-about-it attitude.

On the other hand, folks from Sudan People Liberation Movement In Opposition (SPLM-IO), that is, their spokespeople, talk like there is a gun to their heads. But they have this impotent, annoying, self-righteous attitude like they own THE truth. Like Truth=IO! They make me want to...forget it!

What South Sudanese do not have are leaders who speak on their behalf, leaders who care about South Sudan and her peoples.

But note that Uncle Makuei is neither Jieeng (Dinka) nor is he South Sudanese. He is from a tribe called the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA). This tribe has different clans. The largest two clans are "In-Government" and "In-Opposition."  Bɛny (1) Kiir are Kuär (2) Riek are their tribal chiefs, respectively. 

SPLA is a tribe that lives in the past. The future scares it. It is a tribe that does not apologize. It considers humility a defeat. It does not entertain criticism. Criticism is disrespectful to this tribe. It considers itself infallible. These people do not take responsibility for their actions.

They only like to point their crooked fingers.

But it is a tribe that is internally divided. SPLA as tribal people have used division to recruit two clueless colonies: Jieeng and Nuer. SPLA has so mentally colonized these two nations that they believe that members of SPLA are their fellow tribesfolk.

But President Kiir, once in a while, acts like a true South Sudanese, not a colonialist. He abandons the egregious, insidious values of his SPLA tribefolk every now and then.

Today, he acted like members of his colony: South Sudanese. But you can see in the same speech that his SPLA tribal attitude jumps out of him once in a while: He points fingers at "enemy of peace", who are, strangely, his SPLA folks and the folks SPLA has mentally colonized.

____

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

______

Notes

1. Bɛny is a Jieeng word for a leader

2. Kuär is a Nuer word for a leaders.

Thank you, Mr. President!

Except for those benefiting from South Sudan as a rent state, the country is, unequivocally, a failed state. But I'm not "a bad-wicher!" [as Mr. Ateny Wek would accuse folks like me]. I'm just tired. Really tired!

I've been doing this for more than two decades. My fellow citizens who used to call me names for criticizing you are now calling you vile names I dare not repeat here.

I was only then a concerned, albeit a young, citizen who knew your revolutionary record as a led-leader. You are good, even efficient, at following orders, at being guided, being told what to do.

I didn't see you as a leader of your people! I thought you were a stabilizing force from behind a leader.

In 2005, my fellow citizens thought I was a mindless, peace-disturbing kid who didn't know what he was saying. Why was I seeing in you what they didn't see? They see you now, Mr. President! Clearly! But too late I guess!

Thank you for socio-politically Khartoumizing South Sudan! Thank you for Ibrahim-Abbouding, Jaafer-Nimeiring, and Omer-Beshiring yourself! Thank you for turning SPLM into a totalitarian machine!

Today, in every part of the country, there is either ethnic feud or massacres, a full-blown civil war, or senseless deaths through cattle wrestling.

Yes, the humblest of men, the most successful president in the history of the world, is only focused obsessively on his mindless decrees and those with whom he shares the spoils from oil monies.

Bravo, Bilpam Akech, for an accurate commentary! "Kiir Must Stay!" you say! He must stay on to make South Sudan a-slave-labor state!

South Sudanese, Mr. President is so kind that you remain quiet when you go for more than a year without salaries. You love him so much that you sing praises to him as you die of hunger, diseases, floods, ethnic violence, state oppression, and mere stupidity of his ethnic and yäc-centered cheer-leading minions. Their ceaseless panegyric has become nauseating.

Thank you, Mr. President, for turning a beautiful country into a place where citizens tell their fellow citizens to "go back to their ancestral lands." Thank you for making South Sudan a place where South Sudanese are so secure that they move from their ancestral lands to go and inconvenience, through no fault of their own, the lives of their fellow citizens in other parts of the country. Kudos!

Thank you, Mr. President, for making me understand what you meant by "no reverse gear" in 2005. I thought it meant a full-speed sprint to social development and economic success.

A true Land of Milk and Honey!

I didn't know what you meant was an-SPLM-bullet-train to mediocrity, disorder, anarchy, death, violence and slavery.

Thank you for making South Sudan the only country in the world were citizens work for free. Scholars of slavery and historians tell us that slavery is about ownership of the people, especially their labor.

South Sudan has become your fiefdom, à la King Leopold II. That you don't pay them is testimonial of your control over their free labor.

We know what would happen if South Sudanese protest, even peacefully! Bullets...as your nephew (Thiik) and your government spokesperson (Makuei) have warned! And Bilpam Akech has spoken for you: South Sudanese should COMMIT SUICIDE (hang themselves) if they don't like the amazing country the humblest man in the world has built!

Thank you for making more than a century of a peoples' struggle mean your transformation into an absolute king, a colonialist ruling over subject people from Juba, a neocolonial metropole.

These are subject people about whom you don’t care! Or do you? 

_____

Kuir ë Garang (PhD) is the editor of TPR. 

South Sudanese students' violence in Rwanda: An update

 

Photo courtesy: The New Times

January 4, 2025 

Since I posted the video commentary about the Rwandan incident, several things have become clear. Both the Rwandan police and the South Sudanese Student leadership in Rwanda have noted that the violent incident that was wrongly attributed to South Sudanese students has, if anything, to do with South Sudanese.

As the president of South Sudanese Students Association in Rwanda, Saleh Mohammed Adam, has said in his interview with Juba-based Eye Radio, “the incident happened on the 27^th of December, so we actually have seen the footage, and I told them clearly when we tried to view the footage …and in the actual truth we found out these people who fought Rwandans…are not South Sudanese.”

He added, “I have called one of the police who was in the investigation process of the incident [and] he told me I was right. They said the issue has been already solved so it was just misinformation and misidentification.”

This is why it is crucial that we wait to hear all the facts surrounding the incident before we respond as to who is at fault. Both Rwandans and South Sudanese automatically assumed that South Sudanese are to blame. They attributed violence, a natural fact of every society, to be a natural propensity of South Sudanese as people.

While the South Sudanese leadership did not respond to the incident, the Rwandan authorities did.  The Rwandan police and the ministry of foreign affairs did not buy into the narrative that South Sudanese are naturally violent. Rwandan authorities have shown a sense of leadership South Sudan’s foreign ministry has not.

Boniface Rutikanga, the spokesperson for the Rwandan national police, cautioned the public against using social media as the source of facts and truth.

 “People should not be worried about what is going on over the social media but should learn to understand that the fact not always comes from the social media” [sic].

Advising against targeting South Sudanese, Mr. Rutikanga said that the incident is a normal event that can happen between any communities living in Rwanda or among Rwandan themselves.

“What happened” he added, “was just a case that could happened to any another community. It is normal. It could happen between Rwandans among themselves or could have happened between one community and another” [sic].

Mr. Rutikanga assured the public that neither South Sudanese nor other foreign nationals living in Rwanda have violently targeted Rwandans.

 “…there is nothing special that would be called that South Sudanese were targeting Rwandans or certain foreign group targeting Rwandans. There were no premeditation of doing that, so let me just assure people that there is nothing problematic.”

Responding to the hateful vitriol directed at South Sudanese by Rwandans on the social media, The New Times warned on January 1, 2025, against current and historical dangers of othering. that “Young [Rwandan] people should be taught about the dangers of otherness, especially prejudicial and stereotypical. It starts off as just that, but the cost is too high. Crimes committed should be reported to the right institutions and dealt with legally.”

The New Times added that “Inciting hate against a specific people has no place in Rwanda today or tomorrow. Our hospitality should reflect the remarkably diverse society we have built over the years.”

The New Times was echoing what the Rwandan Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Olivier Nduhungihere, posted on X on December 30, 2024, about Rwandan values of unity, rule of law and respect for diversity of the people living in Rwanda.  

These remarks underscore what I said in the video; that, at the time, we did not know what happened. I said that we should wait for the police to do the investigation to find out what really happened.

I also, as a cautionary reminder, showed a video of South Sudanese being maligned in the Australian media. Some of the videos shown in Australia as South Sudanese youth engaging in acts of violence turned out to be non-South Sudanese.

 As it turns out, the Australian case is similar to the Rwandan incident as facts start to come out. It is pent-up hatred meant to tarnish South Sudanese.

It is therefore vital that we wait for facts before we share our opinions in spaces that do not have editorial oversights. X, formerly known as Twitter, is a sociopolitical wild west.

While it is prudent that we respond to reports when they arise, it is also crucial that we show restraint and avoid self-denigrations.

I am not, of course, saying that South Sudanese do not engage in acts of violence in Australia or in East Africa. I only suggest that we blame South Sudanese when they make mistakes. As South Sudanese, we should not join self-blame and denigration before we get all the facts.

We have started to see ourselves through the prisms of those who have no respect for us.

___

Kuir ë Garang (PhD), is the editor of the Philosophical Refugee (TPR)

 

 

Is the South Sudanese state turning South Sudan into a slave labor camp?

 

Photo Courtesy: Office of the President of South Sudan

January 3, 2025

It is good to be optimistic. It helps you focused to confront adversities in life. There is nothing wrong with that attitude when you are self-motivating. 

But when a president tells citizens to be optimistic without giving them reasonable political or economic plans to be hopeful, he risks trivializing their pain and desperation. 

This is what President Kiir of South Sudan has done in his recent New Year's message. 

South Sudanese have gone for months without salaries. Instead of apologizing to the people of South Sudan, or tell them how the nonpayment of salaries will be addressed in the new year, the president thanked South Sudanese for their patience, resilience, patriotism, and submission. 

Asking South Sudanese to be optimistic when the president presented no tangible agenda for the resolution of what has become a chronic problem in the country is to insult the people of South Sudan. 

Asking South Sudanese to work for free for more than a year, and expecting them to continue on waiting patiently, is risky. It borders on creating a slave labor nation, as someone has noticed.

Admitting economic problems as the president did in his new year's message on December 31, 2024 is reasonable. 

But it is not followed by a plan. President Kiir only asks South Sudanese to embrace uncertainty in perpetuity. A diseased, hungry, flooded, unsafe, and despondent populace cannot build a country. And it can by no means turn into a state-building human resource. 

South Sudanese are exhausted. They have been taken advantage of by South Sudanese leaders under President Kiir and the SPLM. 

The people of South Sudan need more than pastoral inspirations. The youth of South Sudan need programs that would allow them to see and embrace a brighter future the president invokes without a plan. 

The president only invokes a brighter future like a traditional seer or a  false Christian prophet. 

Reminding South Sudanese of the challenges they already live through is to be oblivious of the living conditions of the people. It is self-absolution. 

President Kiir is a political leader. He is not a priest taking confessionals from his congregation. 

He should deal in facts, figures and strategic plans. 

Statements such as "the government will prioritize" or "I am...directing that the Ministry of Agriculture double its effort" are vacuous personal directives. 

The president should speak forcefully in terms of government's plans not personal directives. He should own failures not deflect them or speak in terms of collective mistakes. He is the president. 

When one reads the tone and the messaging in the president's speeches and addresses, he speaks like a middle-management executive who takes orders from the CEO. 

 

That "We in government of today must do our best" or "We must ensure..." are not reassuring. They are abdications of responsibility to the people of South Sudan.

If there are economic challenges, and indeed there are, then what is the government's strategy to resolve the problem? Not mere personal directives. Tangible, documented strategies. This is missing. 

Asking South Sudanese to continue to work for free is a risky affair. It borders on slave labor. 

This must stop!

_________________

Kuir ë Garang (PhD), is the editor of the Philosophical Refugee (TPR)