Creating More States is to Avoid Solving Problems

Slicing up South Sudan into more administrative boundaries [states] is to avoid solving the problem. obviously, additional states are not a solution to governance problems and service provision in South Sudan. Additional states don't increase human power and resources nor do they solve the security problems. From the look of things, things will continue in the same trajectory as this euphoric but false sense of satisfaction from the creation of more states gives people a false sense of hope and security.

The leadership in South Sudan has developed a knack for postponing problems rather than solving them. The internal problems within SPLM resulted from the failure of leaders to tackle things head on. SPLM meetings were postponed in the hope that the problem will magically disappear. The August 2015 peace agreement, the Agreement for the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (ARCISS), was a postponement of the politico-military problems.

Now, the waves of decreemania that's resulting in the creation of more states in South Sudan is a postponement of conflicts and problems in South Sudan. It gives people false feelings that the leadership is solving their problems.

Not only does the creation of more states compartmentalize some tribes and further exacerbate  tribal divisiveness, it also creates more administrative units with no governance and administrative infrastructure needed for service provision. And since these states are created without prior fact-finding missions to first assess and deal comprehensively with communal border issues, the states have added to fatal divisiveness.

A false sense of hope is more dangerous than hopelessness. This is the case in South Sudan. A populace that comes to  the realization that their government wouldn't do anything for them would resort to self-sufficient methods, however difficult. However, a population that's given a false sense of hope that government decrees will solve their problems will remain in destitution and helpless for a long time.

When will South Sudanese leaders realize that creation of more states is a problem postponed? Essentially, some South Sudanese governors operate remotely; far away from the people they are supposedly governing. As one government critic said, this is to bring problems rather than towns to people. Some administrative headquarters are mere mud huts villages.

The federal government also has no strategic and national method of dealing with inter and intra-tribal problems, most of which fatal. However, the South Sudanese government continues to further divide the country administratively as if the current division isn't enough. South Sudan's tribes need to be brought together not divided administratively. We would have thousands of countries in the world if people were given what they want in terms of self-governance.

Making people temporarily 'happy' isn't the same thing as building a healthy future for them.

The colonial [British] idea of creating ethnically-based administrative units in South Sudan was meant to make it easy for the colonial authorities, most of whom not well funded, to control the 'natives.' There was nothing positive about colonial tribal areas. Ethnic districts made it easy for colonial authorities to turn tribes against one another and therefore make them governable through division.

The 'No Man's Land' that was created by the British officials between the Jieeng and Nuer in Upper Nile, which separated Nyarweng and Hol Dinkas from Lou Nuer and Garweer exacerbated the problem rather than solve it. While Europeans nations were trying to bridge their differences and avoid wars through treaties, British officials denied South Sudanese tribes that chance. They rather separate them than help them see ways of mutual interest.

South Sudan has enough problems as it is so it's needless to create more problems while solutions to them are postponed.

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.