Excluding Kiir and Riek in post-war leadership without their consent is counter-productive

President Kiir and fromer FVP Dr. Riek Machar

While President Kiir and former First Vice President, Riek Machar, are part of the problem that plunged South Sudan into political and military confrontations, I do believe that any planned post-war leadership program that excludes them without their consent would be counter-productive. There is absolutely no doubt that the two men have to retire; however, it would be ill-advised to think that these two would accept to be politically forced out or they would accept to step down as if they care about the people of South Sudan. Under no circumstances will these two men accept to step down without any broad-based program that can make sure that they only step down under a comprehensive, inclusive national leadership conference.

In such a conference, these leaders need to be shown how their continued existence in leadership struggle will be a haunting ghost that'll continue to impede any progress, prolong tribal animosity and civil war, and lead to the demise of the country. However, the two leaders would be given a chance to convince South Sudanese and the nation why their continued leadership struggle isn't a spectral political nightmare. 

Part of what makes it hard for these two leaders to step down is the vehement and irrational support their tribal constituents give them. Basically, these supporters will stand by them no matter the atrocities committed by these two leaders. All the problems faced by the civilians and the destruction meted out on the country will only be blamed by the respective supporters on their rivals. Anyone coming up with any solution modalities for the South Sudanese problems has to incorporate this tribal reality into the solution matrix. Admittedly, this tribal reality is categorically unsavory, however, it’s a reality we cannot push under the rug or turn a blind eye on. A transitional readership of technocrats once suggested by Dr. Lual A. Deng and now being championed by Dr. Majak D’Agoot and former political detainees will have to address this tribal dynamic if the supporters of the two leaders are to entertain any notion of the two infamous leaders stepping down.

Many Jieeng people see criticism of President Kiir as not being focused on the issues but on the hatred of the man himself. Any criticism from non-Jieeng is considered tribal; any criticism from different dialectal group of within Jieeng is considered a sectional bias. Unless these tribo-political realities are addressed, any prescribed leadership process will always be tribalized and therefore doomed to failure through tribo-military and tribo-political resistance informed by both ignorance or misunderstanding.

And this tribal reality has always been ignored or downplayed by South Sudanese leaders. This salient feature of our tribo-national existence has to be factored into any solution modalities. Dr. Riek and Dr. Lam ignored this tribal reality in 1991. President Kiir ignored this reality when he incorporated Paulino Matip into the SPLA with his forces under his ‘big term philosophy’ without any long-term plan. President Kiir also ignored this tribal reality when he fired Riek Machar with his entire cabinet in July of 2013. Political opponents of President Kiir—some of whom would later rebel and some would later be arrested after the December mutiny—ignored this tribal reality when they held a press conference on December 6, 2013.

While I agree that Dr. Riek Machar and President Salva Kiir need to step down as they cannot be part of any peacefully working antebellum or post-war leadership, I do believe that excluding them in any post-war leadership program without their consent would still plant negative sentiments among their supporters and fuel future political rift. Any long-term solution to the South Sudanese leadership nightmares need these two men to step down, though no willingly, but with some understanding.

Follow me on twitter @kuirthiy

WHO'S ACTUALLY BEING GOVERNED IN SOUTH SUDAN?

There are many South Sudanese who talk of 'public opinion' or 'popular view'; but how do you gauge that such a view is actually an unsolicited opinion which people hold without fear of retribution? In a nation where holding a contrary opinion is considered a national security threat, it's dishonest to say that there's such a thing as a public opinion because the available 'public opinion' is conditioned into existence by the vicious political class. Those who oppose some of the government's ridiculous, aimless decrees and actions on civilians, have either been silenced, killed or threatened quotidian.

This leads me to this unsavory question: In whose interest the government of South Sudan governs? Admittedly, the government isn't governing in the interest of the people and we still wonder why there's so much inter-tribal hatred and rampant rebellion. When will SPLM and the government actually listen to the people? Apparently, never!

In June and August of 2012, the SPLM and government of South Sudan carried out a study (survey) to gauge 'public opinion'. It was no surprise that, while the people were somehow hopeful about the future, they were categorically dissatisfied with how SPLM was running the country. This should have been a wake-up call for the SPLM leadership to start listening to the people.

SPLM ignored this honest and valuable 'voice of the people.' The 2011-2013 South Sudan Development Plan was also a good development document that could have addressed all the grassroots grievances. Again, it was ignored!

There's nowhere in the world where people can rise up against a government, which listens to the people and addresses their concern.

Are Nuer, who support SPLM-IO, fighting the government because they love to fight? Are folks in Equatoria fighting the government because they love to kill people? Are Shilluk fighting the government because they love to kill president Kiir's tribesmen? The answer is obviously NO!

These people are fighting because of the failure of the government to address their grievance. SPLM, coming from a militarized governance mentality, feels that force is the appropriate manner in which such grievances should be addressed. Another flawless method is to appease some people by offering jobs without actually addressing the underlying causes of the problem.

Molding opinion by coercion or appeasement is dangerous in the long run.

Rebellion, insecurity and inter-tribal feuds will continue in South Sudan unless the government actually talks to the people and addresses their grievances in an honest and comprehensive manner. For instance, a fact-finding mission to the Fertit would find out their grievances and then the government can work closely with them to come up with a method to address their grievances for the long-term. Offering their leaders jobs without actually making sure that the people are 'happy' with the fashioned solution is a myopic leadership fancy.

Conditioning people to sing government praises in Juba doesn't get rid of the actual sentiment people hold. You can militarily force people to surrender but you can't militarily force them to like, with emotive honesty, a government that's oppressing them. If there are things that make it hard for the government to perform some duties then it needs to be honest with the people so that people don't assume things.

Juba is not the only South Sudan and the residents of Juba are not the only population of South Sudan. The zombified (knowingly or unknowingly) people of Juba can't be used to gauge the actual 'public opinion'. South Sudanese have fled to Sudan, Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda; and some are living in displaced camps inside South Sudan. Yet, some of us have the audacity to say that there's an overwhelming, positive public opinion of the government!

GET UP! WALK THE COUNTRYSIDE AND TALK TO THE PEOPLE! Without that, we'll be in a perpetual state of war, insecurity and inter-tribal bloodbath! LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE! This is our only way out!