The dissonance between what leaders say and what they do (Part I)

 

President Kiir and FVP Riek Machar.

Photo: TRR World 

By Kuir ë Garang (Editor)

One of the main problems with African leaders, and South Sudanese leaders in particular, is the dissonance between what they say and what they do.  Anyone paying a close attention to their public speeches would agree with me that there is value and truth in what they say when it comes to the people. But the value and truth in their statements remain where they utter them: at the podium. 

Since he was sworn in as the First Vice President of Sudan and the President of the autonomous Southern Sudan on August 11, 2005, President Salva Kiir has been speaking up against corruption. He even reminded the leadership of the SPLM about the reasons for which they took up arms to fight for the freedom of South Sudanese people. 

The president, however, has not put down any preventative modalities that can ensure that corruption is either eliminated or mitigated. Fighting corrupting and building South Sudan have remained matters of rhetoric. During his 2010 election campaign, President Kiir told residents of Juba that 'If I am elected back, I think things will be different from what has been happening these last five years.'  It has been ten years since that statement was uttered but things have not only remained the same, but they have also become worse. 

But like President Kiir, SPLM officials have not faired any better. They are good at pointing out problems and complaining not knowing that the solution to the South Sudanese problems is in their hands. 

When they spoke up against the loss of vision and direction by the SPLM on December 6, 2013, many South Sudanese applauded them because they were saying what South Sudanese have been saying since the region was given a semi-autonomy in 2005. Unfortunately, the leaders did not come up with solutions or possible solutions. They only gave the president an ultimate to call the political bureau meeting first and postpone the scheduled national liberation council meeting.  But these leaders knew very well that President Kiir is neither a strategist nor does has have the creative means to make a decision that could solve the SPLM internal problems. He has a knack for an easy way out or postponements of the problems until they become too big to solve. 

Now, the same problem is plaquing the leadership in its attempt to make the government of national unity functional. The problem in the country has become more about what leaders want and their inability to solve their problems than it is about the future of the country and the welfare of the people.  When these leaders speak about social justice or the welfare of the people, they only pay lip service. 

One of the five Vice Presidents, Madam Rebecca Nyandeng, recently acknowledged that the leaders have failed. Speaking at an event meant to end child marriage, Rebecca said she "will not shy away from admitting that many of us leaders in this country have failed to empower our population particularly the youth." However, acknowledging the problem is one thing but making sure that there is solution model put in place to solve the problem is more important than the mere acknowledgement of the problem. Without a solution model, a rhetoric becomes part of the damaging political culture. 

While I don't ascribe to the argument by some scholars that SPLM leaders had no interest in developing South Sudan, I believe SPLM leaders became overwhelmed by the enormity of state-building problems that most of them retreated to their survivalist or tribal enclaves. In retreating to this survivalist mode, no one was left to the state-building task. 

What these leaders failed to note is that no matter the gravity of the problems any leadership face, there is always the first steps at correcting what has gone wrong. 

It is therefore prudent that South Sudanese leaders, especially SPLM leaders, realize that state-building start with primary fundamentals. And these fundamentals start with the establishment or the strengthening of institutions that function based on institutional regulations and the constitutions. Institutions should not be run on the whims of the leaders that lead them. The president had no been respecting the constitution. 

Another fundamental is the issue of planning, implementing the plan and accounting for successes and failures. There has been no single national project that has been completed since 2005.  President Kiir has made many promises but he has neither been held accountability for his promises nor does he see it important to freely come to the people about his promises. He acknowledge that South Sudan has failed but it is not his fault.  Why exactly is to blame if the president of the country is not to blame! 

Current projects like the Juba-Bor and Juba-Rumbek roads constructions have been untaken without any sense of transparency. South Sudanese citizens need to have access to how the projects are being funded, where the money comes from, how it is spent, how the companies building the roads were chosen and what the contingencies for the future are. 

I think it is time for the leadership in South Sudan to put the people at the center of their plans. It's been more than 15 years since the South was given a semi-autonomy and nearly ten years since South Sudan became independent. The years of 'we are a young country' are gone! There need to be a congruence between what is said [care] and what is done [destruction/negligence]. 

 In part two, I will address some of the fundamental issues the leadership needs to keep in mind to ensure the centering of citizens and social justice. 

Kuir ë Garang is the editor of The Philosophical Refugee. He's currently a PhD Candidate at York University. Follow on twitter @Kuirthiy 

Is it not time for the people to drive SPLM into the sea?

By Kuir ë Garang*

"If the SPLA cannot deliver anything and we just shout ‘REVOLUTION! and the cattle of the people are not vaccinated; their children are not vaccinated; there is nothing to eat; there are no basic necessities of life; no clothes in the market; no needle, no razer blade…the barest minimum of things are not available…then the people will drive us into the sea. Even if there is no sea here, they will find a sea to drive us to."

~  Dr. John Garang de Mabior, 1990

SPLM as a political party has failed in what it pledged to offer the people of South Sudan. This is not from me but from SPLM leaders themselves as they laid out their failures and leadership indifference on December 6^th, 2013.  This was reiterated by SPLM’s former secretary General, Pagan Amum, on SBS Dinka Radio on November 19^th, 2014. That SPLM has failed is something on which we can all agree. The logical consequence of that admission would then be the formulation of the way forward. Unfortunately, any hopeful formulation of the way forward looks more utopian than real.

But as most, if not all of us know, the events that transpired after December 6^th press conference would change political realities from state-building to war conditions.

So, what happened?

One of the main problems with the SPLM leadership is the inability to solve their problems. Yet, SPLM officials are good at pointing out what is wrong. And when they point out these problems, they always believe it is the SPLM members they oppose who are the problem. Problems are duly identified, meetings call, people disagree and then meetings end without any resolution. This vicious circle is then repeated, and problems accumulate.

While it is appreciable that they acknowledge internal problems and their effects on not only the SPLM but the country, they always fall short of coming up with strategies to solve these problems. And when they attempt to come up with strategies, they don’t implement them. This is the case with South Sudan Development Plan, 2011-2013, SPLM Strategic Framework for War-to-Peace, SPLM’s Peace through Development Agenda and many other post-independence studies and plans.

SPLM problems, which are by extension, South Sudan’s problems, are therefore a result of not having a plan or having a plan that is not implemented. But SPLM officials have never been oblivious to their internal problems and their own weaknesses.

As John Garang de Mabior said to graduating officers in 1990, ‘We have lots of challengers …and there is nobody else to do these things for us except ourselves. The laws which will govern this…the plans…there is nowhere else…these things are going to come from. They are not going to ooze out from my mind or anybody else. It is you, by grappling, by finding problems and trying to solve those problems and succeeding to solve those problems. Then you come out with procedures, with ways to do things. You come out with laws. You come out with regulations. There is no any other way we are going to get political structures, economic structures, administrative structures, except your own practical activities in the field, which then get translated into laws. Laws will not fall from the sky.”

And in his Independence Day speech, President Salva Kiir Mayardit had this to say:

“This Republic is at the tail end of economic development.  All the indices of human welfare put us at the bottom of all humanity.  All citizens of this nation must therefore fully dedicate their energies and resources to the construction of a vibrant economy.  The independence we celebrate today transfers the responsibility for our destiny to our hands.”

But two years after President Kiir’s speech, South Sudan descended into a bloody civil war. And even when several attempts have been made to bring peace to South Sudan, the attitude of the leaders toward one another had become more personal than political. Perhaps Alex de Waal is right to argue that ‘After Garang’s death [the] future [of South Sudan] was closed.’

It is my suggestion that SPLM leaders, in government and in opposition, realize that it is time to either take stock or leave. As the Swahili people say, ‘siku za mwizi ni arobaini’ (The thief’s days are forty). And SPLM fortieth day is fast approaching.

But John Garang warned SPLM 30 years ago and I think it is time the current SPLM leaders pay attention. Here is Garang’s voice from the grave:

“There is no meaning of revolution unless it makes our people happy. Unless the masses of our people, as a result, become prosperous: They go ahead, they advance, they get shelter, they get food, they get clean drinking water, they get education, they get health services…unless we provide these to our people, unless the revolution provides this to our people, then the people will prefer the government of NIF [National Islamic Front] that provides salt to the government of SPLM that does not provide salt. This is simple arithmetic. If the SPLA cannot deliver anything and we just shout ‘REVOLUTION! and the cattle of the people are not vaccinated; their children are not vaccinated; there is nothing to eat; there are no basic necessities of life; no clothes in the market; no needle, no razer blade…the barest minimum of things are not available…then the people will drive us into the sea. Even if there is no sea here, they will find a sea to drive us to.”

It is time for SPLM to change for better, leave, or be driven into the SEA. There will be time when the people will not care whether the South Sudanese army or the national security shoots at them. SPLM was a revolutionary movement; it is now a big fat obstacle to the wellbeing of the people. How long do we think the people will be afraid?

_______________________________________

*Kuir ë Garang is the editor of THE PHILOSOPHICAL REFUGEE. Follow him on twitter @kuirthiy. Like his page on www.facebook.com/kuirthiysword