IT'S TIME FOR PRESIDENT KIIR TO CALL IT QUIT

South Sudanese president

Given the fact that nothing has changed for the last ten years in terms of development, social cohesion and service provision, I think it’s time for President Kiir to call it quit. This is undoubtedly the best course of action to take. While I understand that the president hopes to leave behind a good, lasting legacy, it sure seems that such a legacy will not be forthcoming. There’s absolutely no indication that President Kiir will change the country for better. This results from the incongruence between the president’s words and his actions. The president has, in some occasions, uttered nationally helpful words but does the wrong thing.

However, we need to remember that President Kiir has one enduring achievement that will remain in historical books forever. This is the 2011 referendum and succession of South Sudan. While Dr. John was the architect of the process leading to succession of South Sudan through his negotiation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), it’s President Kiir who actually made sure that it materialized. National Congress Party (NCP) of President Beshir of Sudan--formerly National Islamic Front (NIF)--were vent on killing the referendum.

Another possible good legacy of President Kiir would be his peaceful transfer of power. This would ensure that he goes down in history as one of the few African leaders who’ve peacefully handed over power to a successor. No doubt, this is only possible if President Kiir perceives leadership as geared towards the interest of the people of South Sudan not leadership for its own sake. Essentially, African leaders talk of leadership 'in the service of the people' but most African leaderships are set up  against the interest of the people.

These two realities would go down in history as President Kiir’s greatest achievements. But isn’t this mere utopianism? Isn’t this wishful thinking? Most likely! And not everyone would like this message.

However, I should remind readers that President Kiir has always been projected as a humble man and leader. His humility, sadly, has been appropriated for very destructive purposes. But isn’t it time for the president to show an iota of care? This is only possible if he ever cared at all! But handing over power to someone he chooses wouldn’t be so scary to the president and this trusted inner circle. It’s possible for the president to call his party, SPLM, to meet and name a successor. This is very imperative!

But some people would that if a leader the president chooses becomes president, then the status quo would remain. True! And I agree with that sentiment. However, a change in leadership would change the national psychology. Even if it might not lead, necessarily, to fundamental change and peace, it would still send a signal that the leadership was handed over peacefully and that such a peaceful political and democratic culture would continue.

Violent removal of leaders creates unbecoming and dangerous precedents. A leader who ascends to power by force is most likely to leave power by force. A culture of military conflicts isn’t good for the national health. Besides, a sudden change in leadership without any clear successor creates a political vacuum and power struggle. This is why it’s crucial for the president to choose his own successor before the elections.

I’m therefore calling on the president to consider leaving power after having secured a successor he’s comfortable with. While this might not amount to change in terms of systemic problems facing the country, it would be CHANGE nonetheless.

President Kiir is not only a veteran of the SPLA liberation war, he’ll go down in history as the one who withstood NCP bullying in order to ensure the success of the referendum and the succession of South Sudan. A peaceful transfer of power, as I said earlier, would be another milestone achievement.

The President is also getting old and in ill-health. It’s time for him to go and rest. Let someone else lead with different lenses. This might not be fundamentally different lenses but that'll be different lenses nonetheless.

Is President Kiir's National Dialogue (ND) Another one for the Garbage Can?

The recent call for a national dialogue by the president of South Sudan, Salva Kiir Mayardit, is a welcome initiative. While those of us who've been following the trend of political issues in South Sudan will remain skeptical until tangible results are seen, it's always a responsible thing to welcome any initiative that insinuates peace and nonviolent way of solving our problems. 

Since the president has set up similar committees in the past, it would be a good idea for the president to make sure that this initiative is broad-based and well-tasked to its logical conclusion.

One of the problems with Kiir's ND, however, is the exclusion of the IO as IO forces are causing inconveniences and suffering to civilians in the Equatorias. Since South Sudan is still at war, the president would benefit from the inclusion of Riek Machar's faction and all the fighting forces in South Sudan. We tend to complain that westerners want a regime change but when local initiatives are started, they tend to be politicized and geared towards face-saving instead of being used to actually solve the problem. 

Dr. Riek Machar is part of the problem in South Sudan so he should always be included in any process leading to peace and togetherness. Since Riek Machar has a sizeable number of supporters, their inclusion in the ND, though hard, should be tried for the sake of the country. No one has ever said that peace was easy!

Instead of using ND as a political tool meant to show the world that 'we are doing something' as Joseph Mum Machar recently did at the United Nations, it would be wise of the president to actually use this initiative to end the war hard as that might seem. It's not only the government supporters who are expected to 'dialogue.' It's those who find it hard to come together that should be brought together through this ND.

South Sudanese are not only suffering, they also are tired of war. Whether these civilians support IO or they support IG, they are suffering and tired of war. This is why it'd  be  ill-advised to use this ND as a smokescreen to tell the world 'we are doing something.' 

Since every government initiative since 2005 has never been followed in the way it was intended, the leadership in Juba should understand why people would be skeptical about ND. Good things have always been uttered but no good deeds have ever followed from the utterance of such good deeds.

In his independence speech on July 9, 2011, the president had this to say: 

"Let all the citizens of this new nation be equal before the law and have equal access to opportunities and equal responsibilities to serve the motherland. We are all South Sudanese. We may be Zande, Kakwa, Nuer, Toposa, Dinka, Lotuko, Anyuak, Bari and Shiluk, but remember you are South Sudanese first!" 

The president and his cabinet didn't respect such good words as the country is more tribalized than ever before. It's therefore crucial for the leadership to make sure that this ND doesn't become another failure for the history books. 

"Transparency and accountability is pivotal.  Official corruption has been one of our major challenges during the interim period.  In order to develop our country, and deliver on the important goals of our National Development Plan, it is critical that we fight corruption with dedication, rigour, and commitment," the president had said. 

Unfortunately, corruption remained rampant; transparency became a taboo and the National Development Plan was just another useless book initiative on the shelf. 

For the president to be taken seriously, he has to produce results. Good words don't equal goods until the latter is realized. It's time for the president to prevent this ND from becoming another one for the garbage can.