I don't believe in God, but I respect your belief in God!

 *Kuir ë Garang

Photo: Wikipedia 

I don't believe in God. This is personal. Whether or not God exists is immaterial to me. I can doubt her/his existence; but I cannot prove her/his non-existence in absolute terms. 

So I have no problem with people declaring, 'God exists!' unless they want to convince me beyond what I believe is an innocuous declarative.

 Belief is, however, different.  A belief in a supreme being is a contradiction to ME. If God created me then s/he would be too satisfied, too noble, too powerful a BEING to care whether or not I believe in her/him.

 But I respect other's belief in God. God makes sense to them in a way s/he does not to me. So I don't dismiss other's belief. Dismissing someone else's belief in God is like assuming I know what it feels like to be them. That's a stupid state of mind.

 Thus, an important corollary is this: I believe in the goodness of good people who believe in God. There are people who do good things because of their belief in God. These are the people who make me accept that a belief in God is good for society.

 Those of us who were sponsored or fed by religious groups would attest to this. Image someone living the comfort of her/his home in London, Edinburgh or Seattle to go and suffer in the scorching heat and aridness of Northern Kenya, or the merciless floods of South Sudan. Faith!

 It is Voltaire who once argued that 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' So, I say, I don't share in your belief in God, but I will defend to death your right to your belief!

This is the kind of society in which I want to live. A society in which people respect what others believe or value - as long as it is not socially harmful to others, even when they don't share in its truth or facticity. 

 ____________________________

* Kuir ë Garang is the editor of TPR. 

South Sudanese Facebook and Tik Tok: The good, the bad, and the ugly

Kuir ë Garang*

Photo: 2ser.com 

The social media is, as the English would say, a double-edge sword. For South Sudanese living abroad, Facebook Live and Tik Tok—the two most important avenues of our social media discourse—have become an-everyday reality. Intrusive but necessary, they have become an uncomfortable feature of our cultural and social landscape.

I’m intentionally ignoring Twitter. It’s the abode of pretenders, who think they are better, elites, intellectuals…! They think they are better than Facebookers. They say proudly, ‘I’m not on Facebook!’ That’s a topic for another day.

Facebook and Tik Tok make us laugh, sad, angry, confused, or indifferent. We use them to promote cultural events or fundraisers. We also use them to vent with uncharacteristic bitterness, expose people’s secrets (the post-relationship and post-friendship exposés), or declare enmity.

They are confusing. We complain about them, but we can’t stop watching them, or using them.

But we must admit some things. They are a moral problem and a good. Meaning, we can’t wish them away. Since the good doesn’t need to be fixed, it is the bad that we must address. That is true. In Logical Investigations, Edmund Husserl tells us that Truth is ‘eternal’. It’s not bound by time or a place. (You’re free to dispute this!)

If you use this social media duo [Tik Tok and Facebook] to spread positive social, cultural, and political messages, then kudos. Continue! We need you. That’s true. That’s eternal.

But here is the problem we must address. Insults.

We must address them not for what they mean to the community. That is easy. Any idiot in our community knows that Facebook Live and Tik Tok insults are moral harms and social wrongs. No reasonable person, even the foul-mouthed Facebooker, would say public insults on Facebook are a moral good.

What we must address as a community is the underlying problem, the unspoken. We tend to focus on the fact that so and so insults so and so. The question we must ask ourselves is: Why would a reasonable personal go live, his/her children in the house, and open a verbal artillery of the unspeakable? It’s not the visible that is the problem; it’s the invisible.

What happened to rɔ̈ɔ̈c ë guɔu (shame) and riëëu de rɔ (self-respect)? Why are people saying anything and everything that comes to mind publicly? There must be something deeper, something Freudian about the public insults. Why do the young men and women who vent publicly in the most grotesque of ways on social media believe this is the panacea? Of course, insults make us feel good.

Remember when we were kids and a certain son and daughter of a certain man beat you up. You’re weak and cannot compete so you use your mouth. After thirty seconds of hurling the most filth you can imagine on that son of a gun, you feel amazing! Sigh. But then you run! Run!

Of course, folks who unleash their smutty tirade know public insults are not the panacea for their problems. No matter the amount of vitriol they unleash on their targets, the problems will remain.

But then they feel good! Well, before their friends and relatives call to ask them to refrain.

But their insults play two roles. It gives them a chance to say: ‘I’m not the problem.’ For women, it also gives them the chance to speak. To use Spivak’s expression, women in our traditional communities are the subalterns who don’t speak.

A good wife (tik| tiŋ pieth/tiŋ nɔŋ piɔ̈u) or a good girl (nyaan pieth/nyaan nɔŋ piɔ̈u) doesn’t speak about her marital problems. A young South Sudanese female doctor recently said that women have been freed from the constraints of our tradition. They can no longer afford to be the non-speaking good girls or good wives, she argued. They’ve found a voice.

That sounds good. Worrying but understandable.

I must add something though. Since I’m not a medical professional, I’ll ask our health professionals some questions.

Is there a mental health, trauma element to this?

There is normal venting or speaking out your truth. But then there is scotch-earth, full-blown, leaving-nothing-to-the-imagination paroxysm. Is there something we can do as a community to help people vent respectfully? How can we validate venters, especially women, without normalizing harmful Facebook videos?

What our people don’t realize is this. Venting on the social media, however deceptively privately or reasonable it appears, is like going to the shopping mall full of people and screaming one’s frustration standing on top of a table on the food court. Imagine that. Imagine it for a moment. You may say it is not the same; but it is.

Like it or not, the social media is here to stay. All we must do is to minimize its harm and maximize its usefulness. But if we don’t go to the roots of the problem that make people vent publicly without any ounce of retrain, then we shouldn’t complain about any filth on Tik Tok and Facebook.

The great danger to public venting is this: They are social harms that make some people heard, and self-validating. ‘I will not be ignored!’ is the message.

South Sudanese community ‘leaders’ and health professionals, this is your challenge. The likes of Kuirthiy can only write!

 ______________

Kuir ë Garang is the editor of the TPR. 

 

Criticizing Africa for change and criticizing Africa as a career: Sentimental concerns versus sadistic pleasure

 Kuir ë Garang*

"When there is a crisis in Africa, the west lights up in excitement! It's almost like the 'rediscovery' of Africa, again. Africa appears! It's almost sadistic!"

Photo: Microsoft Icons

For someone who writes political commentaries, some of which negative, the above question may sound odd. But let's get the context. Seriously. 

In fact, I'm not going to stop writing political commentaries on South Sudan and Africa. To me, it is a personal, moral duty. But something about the recent crisis in Ethiopia and the current crisis in Sudan have made me realize something ominous, and sad. It is about the purpose of criticism.

There are various reasons why analysts, critics, journalists, writers, and scholars write about (and mostly against) Africa, especially African leaders.

Some of us, who were born in Africa, have a vested interest. We criticize African leaders because we want change in governance and service provision. As such, we don’t criticize to denigrate. We criticize to inspire change.

But this is not necessarily the case with [some] western scholars, writers and journalists who write about Africa.  Some of them have made criticism of Africa, especially the focus on negative events, a career. They criticize not because they want change.

Unfortunately, those of us who criticize African countries get lump up together in the same category as westerners who have made negative writings on Africa a lucrative profession.

It’s unbelievable.

They don't want Africa to improve! They want it to be the way it is! It's good for business!

When there is a crisis in Africa, the west lights up in excitement! It's almost like the 'rediscovery' of Africa, again. Africa appears! It's almost sadistic!

Sadly, this sadistic excitement about African crises puts Africa on the front pages of major newspapers and websites. And then the excitement disappears, and Africa vanishes from the front pages…until the next crisis, the next horror!

It is almost impossible to see Africa on the front pages of western newspapers for something positive. Even academic journals also focus on negative topics as regular and special issues are riddled with negative themes. This has become standard.

This, like the colonial Dark Continent narrative, continues to perpetuate this dark image of Africa in western consciousness. It is like the tragedy of the commons. Who will write positively about Africa?

When, for instance, a boy or a high school girl in the west tells an African immigrant to 'go back to the jungle', the same journalists and scholars who project Africa as the abode of horror, who only show animals and the jungle, civil wars, famines, corruption, and dictatorship, reflect these young people as informed and ignorant.

But the same people criticizing these kids are the ones who gave them this image of Africa. Where else can these young people get a mysterious, non-existent positive image of Africa? The same people who create the image criticize the very consumers of their labours.

Getting lumped up with the Dark Continent careerist is to be uncharitable to those of us who only want change. There are those who benefit more from a chaotic Africa than from an orderly, successful, and peaceful Africa. What would they do if Africa changes for the better? It would be a loss to them. They may reorient to the new realities. But this would take time.

For those of us who have relatives in Africa, a positive change is a necessity. We therefore want African leaders, however harsh we may appear to them, to improve.

We also want Africa to be peaceful so we can visit and drive through the countryside without fear of being robbed, being shot at or, worse, getting killed.

How beautiful would it be for a South Sudanese living in Canada to go to South Sudan and drive from Narus to Renk without feeling insecure! How beautiful would it be for a South Sudanese from Australia to go to Juba and debate senior political leaders without being intimidated!

“But wait!” you may say! “What you are saying is preposterous! How can you, in good conscience, compare modern western writers with colonial writers?”

I hear you. But think.

Slave traders and slave masters did not acknowledge that slavery was evil until it was abolished. European countries believed the atrocities they committed in Africa were part of the ‘civilizing mission.’ Not until the end of official imperial colonialism did some, of good conscience, acknowledge the horrors of their ways. Today, westerners are missing the picture. What they do in and about Africa is objective and necessary, apparently. They write what they see. Right!

While Joseph Conrad and Mary Kingsley, for instance, may have written about their 19^th century African horrors; modern westerners are writing their African horrors.  It pays to make Africa dark and anomic than to make it bright and hopeful!

Below are some horrors.

This is how Alex de Waal begins his article, The Revolution No One Wanted:

'Khartoum, is being destroyed in a fight to the death between two venal, brutal generals…But if we look at the city’s 200-year history, the fighting shouldn’t be a surprise. Khartoum was founded on a command post built for the purposes of imperial robbery – and every subsequent regime has continued this practice. In ordinary circumstances, Sudan is run by a cabal of merchants and generals who plunder the darker-skinned people of the marchlands and bring their wealth to Khartoum, a relatively opulent city and a haven of calm. But the logic of kleptocracy is inexorable: when the cartel is bankrupt, the mobsters shoot it out. We saw this in Liberia and Somalia thirty years ago. The ransack of the Sudanese state today is ten times bigger.'

 

Horror: ‘cabal of merchants and generals’, ‘venal brutal generals’, ‘cartel’, ‘mobster’. You’d think de Waal is writing about Italian Mobsters in New York or Montreal in a tabloid. But mind you; this is London Review of Books.

First, let me be fair…

Photo: Reuters

To many of us, de Waal is describing an objective reality.  It happened; it is happening.  We have seen ghastly images of Rapid ResponseForces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces destroying the city and killing innocent civilians.

Photo: Reuters

The above portrayal of the Sudanese crisis is therefore welcome. On face value, this is okay, even admirable.

But think!

Has de Waal ever described a positive African event in such a strong, captivating language? (This is a topic for another day). For now, I can say that his only focus are African horrors.

Let’s go back in time. Nineteen-century.  Mary Kingsley, in Travels in West Africa, writes:

‘The more you know of the West Coast of Africa, the more you realise its dangers. For example, on your first voyage out you hardly believe the stories of fever told by the old Coasters. That is because you do not then understand the type of man who is telling them, a man who goes to his death with a joke in his teeth. But a short experience of your own, particularly if you happen on a place having one of its periodic epidemics, soon demonstrates that the underlying horror of the thing is there, a rotting corpse which the old Coaster has dusted over with jokes to cover it so that it hardly shows at a distance, but which, when you come yourself to live alongside, you soon become cognisant of. Many men, when they have got ashore and settled, realise this, and let the horror get a grip on them; a state briefly and locally described as funk, and a state that usually ends fatally; and you can hardly blame them.’

 

Horror! This is West Africa, the ‘white man’s grave’, as it was called then. And here is Joseph Conrad in Heart of Darkness:

‘We were wanderers on a prehistoric earth, on an earth that wore the aspect of an unknown planet. We could have fancied ourselves the first of men taking possession of an accursed inheritance, to be subdued at the cost of profound anguish and of excessive toil. But suddenly, as we struggled round a bend, there would be a glimpse of rush walls, of peaked grass-roofs, a burst of yells, a whirl of black limbs, a mass of hands clapping of feet stamping, of bodies swaying, of eyes rolling, under the droop of heavy and motionless foliage. The steamer toiled along slowly on the edge of a black and incomprehensible frenzy. The prehistoric man was cursing us, praying to us, welcoming us—who could tell?’

Horror! What else could they have done? As Achille Mbembe has noted in On the Postcolony, it is difficult to write positively about Africa. True. That is why some of us criticize African problems.

However, we also mix the positive and the negative. We don’t focus exclusively on the depressing. That would be to take pleasure in African problems, to be sadistic.

It is therefore important to distinguish between those who criticize because they want positive change and those who take sadistic pleasure in talking about African problems…the horror!

 

_____________

Kuir ë Garang is the editor of The Philosophical Refugee. Twitter @kuirthiy 

A Ridiculous British Official, His Pregnant Dog and a Wise Bor Chief

Kuir ë Garang

"She wasn't a divine dog so everyone knew that where there is pregnancy coitus may have happened. No immaculate conception."

 

Photo: Encyclopedia Britannica

My dad used to relate this story about the ridiculousness of some British colonial officials. One incident was about an official’s dog. But what makes the story interesting was the response from a certain Bor chief. It was not only wise, but it was also debilitatingly logical. The rest of the chiefs reportedly acquiesced to the official. This chief did not.

Note that the details are sketchy as I’m remembering from my childhood. The story may not also be true as I assumed it may have been one of the stories exaggerated to make fun of the vile dictatorship of British officials. They had no respect for the local chiefs.

Those of you close to elders in South Sudan, please ask them about this story. We can get the name of the official, where the chief was from and the year.

The story goes like this. There was a cantankerous British official in Bor District, now the counties of Bor, Twi and Duk, with a dog he really loved. He did not like his dog fraternizing with local dogs. But then dogs are dogs and the natural was inevitable. His dog became pregnant. An ‘uncivilized’ dog had impregnated a ‘civilized dog’! That was an offence, an offence to civilization.

She wasn't a divine dog so everyone knew that where there is pregnancy coitus may have happened. No immaculate conception.

Unsurprisingly, the official was not pleased. He summoned the district chiefs because he wanted to know the owner of the dog and the offending dog. The official travelled throughout the district so the dog may have been impregnated by any dog from all the four communities.

Most of the chiefs, the story goes, were asked in turn and they promised to investigate the incident and find the offending dog. It was a ridiculous circus as the chiefs did not understand how they could be called because of a pregnant dog. But dictators always believed their truth must be accepted. Besides, the chiefs could not really oppose the colonial officials without reprisal. These officials acted like mini-gods against Africans.

But one brave Bor chief found the whole incident ridiculous. Being a wise man, he asked a logical, informed, and relevant question. He knew the consequences of opposing a colonial official, so he worded his response in a way the official found gagging to counter. He wanted to show how ridiculous the official case was, so he also countered with a ridiculous scenario of his own.

He said that this looks like a grievance case being brought before the chiefs for a solution. In Jieeng traditions, the chief said, a person who has a grievance must report it and then sit before the elders. The elders and chiefs would then deliberate about the merits of the case.

Since the dog is the one that was pregnant, the case should be between the pregnant dog and the offending dog, he said. The offending dog was not present, so the case was one-sided. They could not deliberate on it. He also wanted the official to sit before the elders as he was the one reporting the case. He could not dictate the terms of the case.

This caused stir and laughter among the chiefs. The official was not pleased, but he was challenged. African wisdom.  

From what I remember, the official found the chief response ridiculous. But that’s what the chief wanted the official to understand. How could the chiefs respond logically to an irrational person?

_________________________

Kuir ë Garang is the editor of the Philosophical Refugee. Follow him on Twitter @kuirthiy.

Ethnic Violence in South Sudan: Jieeng vs. Ethnic Groups in the Equatorias

By Kuir ë Garang 

 Transcript (Edited): 

The problem of ethnic divisions and ethnic feuds in South Sudan, and Africa generally, is something that has been studied a lot by Scholars whether they are African scholars or they are Western Scholars, the so-called Africanists. It's been studied.

And the mistake that many scholars tend to make is that the presence of different ethnic groups that have not been homogenized to build a nation is the problem. So, the presence of different ethnic groups with different languages and different cultures is the problem.

Scholars like Walter Rodney and Francis Mading Deng have [however] argued that the presence of different ethnic groups within a country, whether you're talking about Ethiopia or talking about Nigeria or talking about South Sudan or Kenya, the problem is lack of state infrastructure that can be used to ensure that state resources are distributed in a way that does not leave other ethnic groups with grievances. And also have in place state infrastructure that can resolve problems when they arise.

In South Sudan we have major ethnic groups like the Nuer and then the Jieeng who tend to dominate because of the numbers. That tends to make smaller ethnic groups wary of domination.

So, if there's no any state infrastructure put in place so that smaller tribes are taken care of or their grievances are addressed in a way that makes them comfortable, then there will always be problems. So it's a failure of the state, by the state, to put in place ways in which problems that arise can be resolved, then you will always have problems.

The problem within South Sudan is not that the tribes hate one another. The problem is that differences are politicized.

I lived in South Sudan. I lived among the Nuer; I lived among different ethnic groups, and I've seen their kindness. I've seen that the problem is not the people themselves. The problem is the social condition and the political setup they find themselves in.

So, what is happening between Jieeng and the local tribes in Equatoria now is the politicization of difference. It's also the problem of resources, the problem with spaces where people are saying “this is our ancestral land” and they feel they're not being listened to. They feel their source of livelihood is being destroyed.

So that tends to make people enter into a survivalist state. And when you push people into a survivalist mode, what they do, whatever they do when they kill people or they, you know, try to chase away people they feel like they're trying to protect their livelihoods. So they don't see any problem in what they're doing. They see it as protective.

Unless the state comes in to sort of intervene in a way that is fair, a way that satisfies whoever has grievances. That's the main problem.

The Jieeng people are in Equatoria not because they want to dominate. They are in the Equatorias because where they were born, their ancestral lands, are not safe. But then there's no, as I said, there's no sort of social infrastructure, political infrastructure, economic structure that has been put in place to ensure that the Jieeng who leave their own places and go to the Equatories live with the local people in a way that is respectful of the land, respectful of local people and then respectful of the local people's economies.

That is not being done. And it has reached a point now where it's almost impossible to resolve. But I don't think anything is impossible to resolve. But the government is not strategizing in a way that can resolve this problem.

But the problem in South Sudan now is not ethnic differences. It's the failure of the state to put in place ways to make sure that grievances are addressed. If nothing is done and the same sentiments we have now continue, then it's going to create a situation where people will be insecure.

If you travel for example now from Juba to the town of Bor, or from Juba to Yei, or from Juba to Nimule, you're most likely going to be shot at. People are afraid.

But one of the things I want to advise South Sudanese is: It's easy, and it's different, sometimes it's actually satisfying, to say something when you are offended or you feel your people are being oppressed to say something, to say whatever you want to say.

But here's what I beg from you. When you make another ethnic group unsafe then you make your own group unsafe. You cannot say "you know what I'm going to kill these people and then I'm going to sleep soundly and comfortably and safe." No, you can't.

So, the only way to resolve, the only way for you to sleep safely, is to make sure that other ethnic groups do not have negative attitudes towards you. That's the only way.

But the moment you say you want to go and fight or go and attack other tribes, what will they do? They'll still come and attack you. And [it] becomes counter, you know, attacks and counter-attacks and the people become unsafe. That's not going to help anyone.

But sometimes it makes us feel good to stop to sort of say things against the people who feel have hurt us. We say whatever we want to say. But then it comes back to us.

_____________________

Kuir ë Garang is the editor of the TPR. 

Our conclusions in the hindsight

 Kuir ë Garang*

"My conclusions about Zuma and SPLM turned out to be right. But I’m not right because I have some crystal balls. I only used their track records. Simple! My critics and I had access to the same evidence." 

TÖK (1)

When Kuol Manyang was appointed governor of Jonglei state in 2007, I wrote an article arguing that Kuol was not going to make an effective governor.

My reason?

Kuol was effective during the war because he was feared. He fired people. Literally! With a gun! When it comes to administrative skills, I said, he has little.

That didn't sit well with one South Sudanese writer. He condemned me, calling my article an unsubstantiated opinion. It is unfair to judge Kuol before he has the chance to govern, he said. That seemed to make sense. Not quite!

A few years later, the same writer would say exactly what I had written. He condemned Kuol as a ‘failed governor’.

ROU (2)

When Jacob Zuma was plotting to oust President Thabo Mbeki in 2008, I wrote an article arguing that Zuma is a populist. Populists, I argued, do not have set principles. They are 'wind-socky', I added. They go where the wind blows. At the beginning, they condemn their predecessors when plotting to oust them. When in leadership, however, they change from time to time. But they either revert to the very ideas they had previously condemned, or they adopt new ideologies they deem popular.

Using the story of Napoleon and Snowball in George Orwell's Animal Farm, I compared what Zuma was doing to what SPLM was doing in Juba to Napoleon’s treachery. Zuma initially supported ousting Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe as the ‘international community’ was demanding it. Mbeki opposed it.

In the SPLM, Chairman Kiir and SPLM members condemned Dr. John Garang in 2004 regarding his dictatorial tendencies and the then rampant corruption within the SPLM. They wanted change, apparently. We all supported their condemnation of Dr. John then.

To my surprise, two South Sudanese young men condemned me. They did not understand why I compared Zuma to SPLM leaders. But what happened to Zuma and SPLM? I will leave it to you to Google that!

DIÄK (3)

In 2015, I wrote an article in which I highlighted how Jieeng dominated key positions in Kiir’s government. A prominent South Sudanese intellectual and scholar, who is also a former cabinet minister, sent me an email in a mild protest. He is Jieeng and he was opposed to Kiir’s government. But my article did not impress him, surprisingly. He advised me that it is not a good idea to write about Jieeng dominance.

Well! A few years later, he would write an article in which he focused on Jieeng’s dominance of the South Sudanese government. His article was more scathing and more comprehensive than mine. What did he learn that he did not know? Perspective? Clarity of vision? I don’t know.

What is my point? (Yeŋö luɛɛl)

It’s important to review how we draw conclusions. What do we use? Evidence? How we feel about something?

In July of 2019 Peter Chol Ajak of SBS Dinka radio asked me whether Riek Machar would become president of South Sudan. My answer was ambivalent about Riek becoming a better president. I, however, was not ambivalent about Riek becoming president per se.

As a citizen of South Sudan, Riek Machar, I told Chol, has the right to be president. However, I told him I had doubts about Riek becoming a better president than Kiir in terms of service provision and administrative capabilities. I look at what a leader has done previously to discern whether he’d make an effective leader. From what I have seen from Riek leadership abilities after 1991, I had doubts about his becoming an effective leader.

I however added that we can give Riek Machar the benefit of the doubt. Zuma? SPLM?

It is important to always self-interrogate to see if there is something clouding one’s judgement. Things may be very clear from a certain perspective. But shifting to a different perspective, just a little, may help us see what we are missing.

My conclusions about Zuma and SPLM turned out to be right. But I’m not right because I have some crystal balls. I only used their track records. Simple! My critics and I had access to the same evidence.

___________________________________

*Kuir ë Garang is the editor of The Philosophical Refugee. Follow him on Twitter @kuirthiy 

The Selflessness of Reverend Abraham Monybuny

 

Reuben Garang, Winnipeg, Manitoba*

"Being fluent in both the Jieeng and Nuer languages, Rev. Monybuny’s homilies are deeply full of reflections and sometimes hysterical. Love it when he is preaching in Jieeng."

 

Rev. Monybuny and his family

Allow me to fly in the face of the Jieeng’s (Dinka’s) beliefthat Raan ace leec ke pïïr ka raan ace leec ke tɔ̈ nyinthïn. Jieeng has some sayings that if taken out of context, makes the least amount of sense. Raan ace leec ke pïïr ka raan ace leec ke tɔ̈ nyinthïn word for word it means a person cannot be appreciated when alive or while you stand in their presence.  

However, figuratively, it means a good deed done for the community is everyone’s responsibility and that individuals who outperform others are only appreciated in their absence. To encourage others to do the same or more importantly to make the appreciation more authentic and freer from being perceived as flattery, the Jieeng believes that a genuine appreciation or thanking is one done when the person receiving the thanks is not around.

In the olden days, appreciations and positive feedback was provided in the absence of a person. When an individual was criticised directly, it restricted chances for community gossip. Community being sharp-eyed and sharp-eared does a great service to the person who do good to others  in many ways, including respecting the individual on a greater scale, but as well as their families.

The point of this letter is to go against our older traditions of appreciation by publicly commending Reverend Abraham Monybuny for all the great work he has done and continues to do for the Jieeng and the South Sudanese community in Winnipeg.

Rev. Monybuny runs a non-stipend ministry while at the same times doing a full-time job to support his family. For more than a decade he has voluntarily run the successful, cultural youth summer program many youths within our community attend annually. The program produces young leaders equipped with professional and life skills, aiding them in the work they would be doing for the larger City of Winnipeg.

This is where Rev. Monybuny is exceptional. People call him night and day for help or assistance, whether its transportation, a visit to the hospital, or grocery shopping. And day and night, he is there to help. He is a handyman, so he provides any assistance he is asked to do.

Rev. Monybuny is trusted amongst so many people within the community.

However, with all the good deeds he provides, he still is blamed and sometimes disrespected.  Really?  It is far-fetched, but this speaks to the universal fact that human being is a very complicated being.   The thing about him though, he does not show it. Rev. Monybuny is a resilient man.

See his name is longer than most names, could be deemed “difficult” to remember. Nevertheless, everyone, even little children in the community, remember him. They know how to pronounce his name because the man connects to most families in a cordial way. This is the person, that when you see him standing at your home’s front doorsteps, you feel at ease and blessed.   

Being fluent in both the Jieeng and Nuer languages, Rev. Monybuny’s homilies are deeply full of reflections and sometimes hysterical. Love it when he is preaching in Jieeng. His command of the Jieeng language is powerful and artistic.

For a few years now, whenever there is a community gathering or there is something concerning him or his role in the community being discussed, I tend to acknowledge his good deeds even when he is around.

A genuine acknowledgment of good deeds is not flattery. Some people do more than others for their community, but a few are exceptional like the Rev.  Monybuny.

 ____________________________________________________________________________

* Reuben Garang is the Executive Director - Immigration Partnership Winnipeg. He has previously worked for the province of Manitoba as a policy analyst and a community Outreach Advisor. You can reach him at reubengarang70@gmail.com 

Twic East County needs leadership and a serviceable system

Reuben Garang* 

"The newly formed leaderships created at urban centres still have no clear powers, and the same politicians are in charge. It is best for gracing public events in Juba. The diaspora’s leadership does not have the capacity as well. It also suffers from the culture of quick cycles of elections that see people coming in and leaving without achieving much.  No one knows if their organizations in the diaspora are community associations, political theatres, or arenas to cultivate hate.  It is worth mentioning though that the people react to situations and always want to help. However, these organizations have no long terms goals as their structures change with the election cycle." 

Reuben Garang.
Photo: Author's Facebook Account. 

Like many other counties in the flood-prone areas in South Sudan, Twic East County is entirely devastated by floods.  For three years now, the county has remained submerged under water. Cultural sites are eroded, life-supporting animals killed or displaced, farmlands destroyed, and as a result, majority of the locals are in displaced or refugee camps or forced into the urban centres. These socioeconomic and environmental changes are affecting county leadership capacity to make critical decisions on the direction and the future of the county. It is also adding problems to the dire situations created by long civil wars in South Sudan        

 In many of his public speeches, Twic East’s paramount chief, Manyok Ajak Majok, repeatedly pleaded for help. He appealed to Twic politicians and Diaspora leaders to help decide the direction and or the future of the County. He needs help.  In the past, it was people in position of head chief, sub-clan leaders and elders who used to make critical decisions.  This is not the case now.

Why? Well, apparently, the chieftaincy powers in South Sudan are rapidly declining or blunted.  Modern governance structures overshadow customary systems, including the chieftainship though the former is not working to the expectation. In addition, the principal chief Majokdit and his fellow chiefs are among the displaced persons making them ineffective to govern. They are powerless and cannot decide on critical matters affecting their scattered community as they used to do. They have nowhere to begin, let alone to decide.  

The Members of Parliament (MPs) representing the area are suffering from the same diseases affecting all the country's politicians. Public institutions under which they operate are seemingly dysfunctional.

The newly formed leaderships created at urban centres still have no clear powers, and the same politicians are in charge. It is best for gracing public events in Juba. The diaspora’s leadership does not have the capacity as well. It also suffers from the culture of quick cycles of elections that see people coming in and leaving without achieving much.  No one knows if their organizations in the diaspora are community associations, political theatres, or arenas to cultivate hate.  It is worth mentioning though that the people react to situations and always want to help. However, these organizations have no long terms goals as their structures change with the election cycle.

The commissionership is a leftover of the colonial structures that no one knows why in the first place the SPLM has adapted it. I have no idea if it was the Turkish or British people who introduced this one-person institution. It never had been adequately integrated into local government structures at any point in the history of the region. Although a decent citizen now occupies it, the position was not designed to provide an inclusive grass root leadership. Therefore, our county at the height of all the calamities experiences a leadership void.

What is then possible to change this leadership deficiency at the county level?  For the short term, it is the commissioner to lead using the bottom-up approach and remains not as relic of the colonial system. To impact change, a decision taken at the Payam and/or Boma levels have to influence decisions taken at the State level and federal levels. Villagers' inputs should count. So there must be better ways of seeking inputs from the clan systems than what exists now. The current system of  acë lueel rɔɔk (the decree or orders come from the town /court centre) has to stop. Luel rɔɔk by who?  Who is that from the town centre that decides on behalf of the masses?

 It is possible the commissioner, with local leaders, can decide the future of the county and just seek assistance from the state and federal levels.  A local-grown or informed solution will only work. Therefore, to make a drastic change, the current commissionership occupant has to dare to create this new thinking to change the community mindset.  A time to make a bold decision about the future of the county is overdue. We cannot wait the water to recede without a community-blessed plan for the future.      

If the county waits for politicians and Diaspora leaders to decide for her future, it will be waiting for mom ke yeth, as one of the Twic idioms goes.  Politicians in Bortwon and Juba as well as   diaspora can help, but with implementation of a locally driven and led plan.

There are many good ideas floated on social media from community members on what to do to steer the county in the right direction at this critical time. The community has discussed the idea of building one town in the area to consolidate services.

In 2019 or 2020, diaspora leaders, Lual Bul Manyok, Deng Chol Riak, Deng Atemtiordit, and  a few members from the  community, put together a short plan titled Fostering and Upgrading Twic East Urban Roads and Economic ( FUTURE). This document was later sent to Twic Leadership back home. The gist of the letter is:

“We need to build a single mini-city (made up of five large estates), which will attract people, including non-Dinka. Our development agenda would be to use the Twic East County diaspora human resources to help to channel their resources into developing this city.

It is easier to defend a town and harder for raiders to attack a city of assembled villages. Agricultural activities can go on outside of the town (in Lok/ Aying areas as a part of increasing human activities in that area to deal with the double issue of addressing insecurity and food security). The development of this city may begin to boost economic activities, which contribute to an increased sense of security, and which attract people.

In this city, we will concentrate on running five good secondary schools, five good hospitals, five good housing projects, five good clean water projects, etc. If we formalize such a proposal and direct the energies of the diaspora toward achieving this goal, our people may begin to leave Kenya within a few years and return home. All the money we spend in Kenya will be rechannelled into Twic East County's economy in a few years.”

This proposal was made before the displacement due to the flooding.  No one picks it back home.    

There are many great ideas floating around that, if there is leadership, could be tried to shape the future of the County. Kuek Aleu Garang Dekuek, Duot Manyang Duot-Akech, Chol Kelei Chengkuo, and Deng Bul Garang, among others, have produced great ideas about the need to consolidate resources to shape the future of the County.   For Mr. Kuek, Twic has to come up with a 50-year-plus strategic plan that should include building one city for Twic to improve service and preserve fraternity. He has been advocating for this for nearly a decade. 

For Mr. Duot, it is his call every day. Those who are friends with him on Facebook know what I am talking about.  Mr. Duot wants people to think big and work together for a brighter future for the county. For Mr.  Chol, Twic will be no more in the near future if its citizens fail to work collectively at present to make a home attractive for the displaced population. With his economic ideas, among them, farming the land at small and large scales is the way to begin. Mr. Deng continues to post the question of “what would become a scattered Twic East” if nothing is decided now? Many community members including former Twic USA leader Bul Thuch Dut contributed ideas to answer these questions.

Things are possible if the leadership at the county level and people work together for their collective good.  We have seen those of Maketh Kuer Khoor, Chol Kuch Chol, and Deng Akuur Mabior, among others, with their developmental housing project in Kenya. They have successfully turned a vacant land into modern dwellings.  They have a very small group of people but with great ideas and pragmatic leadership.  We are not lacking ideas; we can also borrow from the experience of the world. We have scientists and researchers who need leadership and functioning systems to benefit from their expertise.  A governor Riny Tueny Mabor or Maketh Kuer type of leadership at the County level to change things. 

Twic East needs a compassionate, community-centered, and risk-taking leader, to mobilize ideas and resources and implement them.  As we speak, there is a lack of that brave and entrepreneurial leader to steer the ship. More worrying there is that no coordinated and accountable system to incubate and funnel community ideas resources.

 No one is accepting the challenges and taking charge.  An innovative and pragmatic leader is needed. A self-motivated leader who wants to change things for the good of the people. Twic East County needs someone who believes in themselves and the power of organized people. Someone to lead from the bottom up, not from top of the leadership ladder. Someone who is respectful but not an appeaser of elites. Someone with courage to keep peace with neighbouring counties.  

It may sound easy, but it is not.  It is very difficult to lead without resources and functioning system.  Therefore, we have to appreciate those in the position of power as they try their best to help their people. Nevertheless, someone must rise above all these challenges and lead with resolutions. Work with the people at the grassroots to devise a vision and mobilize resources and ideas. It should start with the establishment of a town like centre outside flood prone zone.  

 Who is or who will be that leader?               

    __________________________________________________________ 

*Reuben Garang is the Executive Director - Immigration Partnership Winnipeg. He has previously worked for the province of Manitoba as policy analyst and community Outreach Advisor. Garang holds a master degree in sustainable development practice from the University of Winnipeg. You can reach him at reubengarang70@gmail.com