How long will African youth endure a silent indignity?

Photo: Festo Lang/CNN

The youth in Africa, which is by far the continent with the youngest population, 70% being under 30 years, are like exploitable things used by political leaders to decorate themselves. This is not always a palatable adornment. They are either their political muscles, conduits for their ethnicized polemics, or cheerleaders of their stayist agenda. 

I see this on many South Sudanese fora and social media platforms. 

But African youth are listening, watching...peacefully. Demoralized and devalued as they are, they are still the future. And they know it.

As such, African leaders should not be too complacent. Pre-empting any hints of protests with massive military deployments is also not the way to go. Shutting down youth meetings for fear of these meetings morphing into anti-government movements is not also the way to go. 

The youth may not liberate themselves by picking up guns and flee to the bush. But they know the power of the social media and its importance in galvanized THE STREETS. 

In South Sudan, the youth is unemployed and their parents go for months, even years, without being paid. Protesting, the most democratic means for the expression of grievance, is dangerous, even fatal. The youth of South Sudan and their parents suffering in a silent indignity. 

But the youth in Africa, even in South Sudan, are a sleeping giant. Kenya has shown African leaders that they are no longer willing to be tools for the exploitation of the people and the mouths for the spread of divisive ideas. 

They want improvements in their political culture, their economies and political leadership. It is that simple.

African leaders take the youth for granted. Kenya and Nigeria have now seen the consequence of ageist arrogance. They must appreciate what the youth are doing to change their countries for better. Not all Gen Zs have been zombified and stupefied by Instagram and Tik Tok as some politicians like to believe.

Listen to them. The appropriate responses is change in policies not guns and tanks. 

Here is the importance of the protests. Instead of fleeing their countries out of frustration to die in the Mediterranean see like thousands of African youth who continue to defy the deathly Sahara and what some commenters have called the new middle passage, protesting African youth have decided to challenge the historical amnesia of their political class. 

Africans leaders cannot have it both ways. They cannot ignore the ones dying on their way to Europe and expect the ones who have remained at home to be quiet about what made those youth brave death. 

The youth do no like to protest. They like a better living standard. 

It would be foolhardy for African leaders to mock them. Museveni, stuck in the past, as as entitled and blinded by power as former US president, Donald Trump, seems to assume he is going to live forever. 

He uses the police and the army to intimidate the youth and opposition figures. But how long will that last? The army and the police will one day realize that they work for the people. And the emperor will be seen for what he is: Naked!

In South Sudan, the political class is reading from Museveni's authoritarian book. Any time there is a mustering about protests, the army floods the streets with tanks and armored cars. Yes, armored tanks. The South Sudanese army is not used to protect civilians. It is used to intimidate. 

But how long will the youth of South Sudan suffer in dehumanizing silence? How long will South Sudanese leaders rely on divisive politics to prevent youth from reminding the political class that the future is the youth not men and women in their 60s, 70s and 80s acting like they still have the next fifty years to rule?

Since 2005, the political class in South Sudan transitioned from liberation-mindedness to power politics. In power politics, priorities are about parties and individuals. The future of the country becomes secondary if it is at all part of political conversation. 

Between 2005 and 2011, the ruling party, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), failed to transition into a conventional political party. Leaders could not agree on succession. 

They kept on postponing conventions,  normalizing postponement. The consequence was the war in 2013. The culture of postponement has now becomes part of the peace agreement. The elections also seem to be heading that way. 

Meanwhile, the country is falling apart. Salaries have not been paid for months. A recent report by the Associated Press shows that civil servants are leaving their jobs for menial work. Some have resorted to waitressing while others have become charcoal salesmen. 

But the president either does not care or he has no idea what he is doing. Between 2020 and 2024, South Sudan has had six finance ministers. 

Until recently, the president kept the public guessing about the reason for which he fires finance ministers, some of whom lasting for less than a year. Apparently, he is looking for the right person. The South Sudanese finance ministry has become a matter of trial and error. 

The president may have not realized that the reason why institutions vet candidates is to avoid aimless and error. Vetting and interviews are meant to find the most qualified or the most appropriate Candidate for the job. 

A recent selection of a running mate by the presumptive Democratic President Candidate, Kamala Harris, is an example. Harris vetted qualified candidates and settled for Minnesota Governor, Tim Walz. Harris believed Walz is the best Candidate for the kind of the presidency she hope to run should she win in November.

President Kiir needs to learn this. Vetting candidates based on experience, past achievements, education, and fit removes the needs to hire candidates blindly. The president can even outsource the vetting process to ensure a company with experience hiring qualified candidate does the vetting. 

But we know that doing so may lead to the hiring of someone who is good for the job but bad for those who have captured the state governing apparatuses. So for the president to say he is looking for the person to fix the economic when he is not exercising the judgement required to find one is dishonest. 

Today, the president and the ruling class are comfortable. But they should note that the youth are watching what is happening in Kenya and Nigeria. The African Spring is afoot. 

South Sudanese leaders should not be complacent. The youth are peaceful. But they are not mentally dead.

INSPIRING SOUTH SUDANESE

__

Kuir ë Garang (PhD) is the editor of The Philosophical Refugee. Follow on X: @kuirthiy. 

See my recent scholarly publication:

An Afrocentric analysis of colorism: Looking at beauty and attractiveness through African eyes. In R. E. Hall & N. Mishra (Eds.), Routledge International Handbook of Colorism: Bigotry Beyond Borders (pp. 175-194). Routledge.

Is SPLM-IO Becoming Politically Irrelevant?

Left: President Kiir; Right: VP, Dr. Riek Machar

By Kuir ë Garang

What I have noticed about Dr. Riek Machar is that he believes if he sticks to the truth and facts, then things will work out well. For some strange reasons, he has internalized this morally necessary but politically unpalatable reality. For a politician, this is odd, and very much so. He has been pushing this narrative now for well over a decade, that the world would side with him because he says the truth and President Kiir does not. But as he very well knows, truth in politics is a casualty of political schemes, interests and hypocrisies.

This does not mean there is no such a thing as truth or that truth does not matter. The issue is this: Truth, yes; but cui bono, who benefits?

Since August 17, 2015, when President Kiir and Dr. Riek Machar signed the agreement for the resolution of conflict in South Sudan (ARCISS) and then revitalized it on September 12, 2018, Dr. Riek Machar labored under the bewildering assumption that President Kiir will implement the agreement as stipulated in all its provisions. He also believes that if President Kiir does not implement the agreement, then peace partners and mediators will force him to ensure that all the provisions of the agreement are implemented.

This is a strange state of mind in politics, especially in countries Stuart Hall has described as complexly structured societies. I can say South Sudan is one of them.

President Kiir has shown time and again that he is either not interested in implementing the agreement or he does not know how to implement the agreement. This is a warranted presumption. Why Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-in-Opposition (SPLM-IO) still believes that President Kiir will change and implement the agreement is beyond me.

SPLM-IO has no political leverage. They only believe that truth and facts are on their side and that regional leaders will see who is at fault. But Kiir is the president so how regional leaders approach him is not as a subordinate or someone they can force to accept their punitive dictates.

This is something SPLM-IO must understand. Hear this again: They cannot, and will not, force Kiir’s hand! He is their colleague even when they at times act condescendingly toward him. IGAD leaders tried threatening Kiir like an infant in 2015. We know what happened.

If President Kiir must change, then that condition of change must be a political leverage Dr. Riek and SPLM-IO develop, either within the region or within the country. The agreement itself is not a leverage, but SPLM-IO believes it is.  The case of the Tumaini Initiative is a good example. It shows they neither have political leverage nor are they taken seriously in the region.

Running to mediators and regional leaders regularly to share grievances and the contravention of the agreement by President Kiir will only prove to Kiir that you are politically impotent and potentially becoming irrelevant. When regional leaders share Riek’s grievances with Kiir as casual advisories among colleagues, then any chance of Kiir taking you seriously dwindles with time.

Mediators and regional leaders can only urge the parties to the agreement to work toward the implementation of the agreement. That is all they can do. The people of South Sudan suffer when the agreements are not implemented; but President Kiir does not. He suffers no disincentive when he runs SPLM and ARCISS through the mud. As a frustrated former Ethiopian Prime minister, Hailemariam Desalegn, once said about the South Sudanese peace talks in Addis Ababa in 2015, the peace process had become meta-talks, talks about talks, not talks about peace.

SPLM-IO and Dr. Riek must find a way, through their own internal political mechanics, to force President Kiir to implement the agreement. No one outside Juba will do that. When President Kiir removed the minister of defense, Angelina Teny, on March 3, 2023, all SPLM-IO could do was share their displeasure and disenchantment with his actions. That was all.

It is time to realize that SPLM-IO political relevance in South Sudan should no longer be through the revitalized peace agreement. It must grow as a political entity. This is time for a political make-over. Even when we all know SPLM-IO is not necessarily on the wrong about ARCISS, and we know that facts and truth are on their side, being doggedly fixated on R-ARCISS is a dangerous political naivete. SPLM-IO’s long-term relevance should be through an institutionalized, coherent platform as a political party. That is the future, and that is the future of South Sudan. If Riek has no political leverage against Kiir, and facts to this date show he does not, and if regional leaders only convey advisories to Kiir, then it is time for Riek to change course. Political and strategic monotony is a sure path to political oblivion.

SPLM risk becoming, or it has already become, politically irrelevant. Unless of course being in government and occupying functionless, but fat government positions is how SPLM-IO wants to remain politically relevant in perpetuity.

_________

Kuir ë Garang (PhD), is the editor of The Philosophical Refugee. Twitter/X: @kuirthiy

 

Is President Kiir an authoritarian monarch, Dr. Martin Lomuro?

 

South Sudanese ministers need to wake up. Seriously!  Their timidity has destroyed the country. Treating President Kiir like a scary, unquestionable monster is a disservice to President Kiir himself and the people of South Sudan, especially the youth. Their future is being mortgaged. We should not conflate fearing the president with respect.

South Sudanese ministers either do not know about intra and inter-ministerial protocols, or they simply do not care about them. What the minister of cabinet affairs, Dr. Martin Elia Lomuro, said recently during a parliamentary summon on June 6, 2024, typifies this.

“If the present decides and direct payments as an executive head,” he said, “do I have the power…to change? I don’t have.”  Of course he has.

Lomuro seems to assume that the president is above the law. The president is not supposed to be obeyed just because he is president. That would be an acknowledgement of authoritarianism.  President Kiir should only be obeyed if his directives adhere strictly to national laws and procurement protocols within and between various ministries and departments.  

The failure to adhere strictly to procurement protocols may be the reason why South Sudanese go for months without being paid. When will the ministers start to prioritize adherence to protocols over personality cult and elitist politico-economic cabals? Is the South Sudanese cabinet a cartel? This is the threat to human rights and social justice in South Sudan.

It is now nearly a decade and a half since South Sudan became independent, but these simple institutional protocols are not being adhered to. Who is to blame here? That “we are still a young country” is a scapegoat that has escaped into the sovereignty forest. It is time for service provision.

That the president is the head of the executive branch of government means absolutely nothing if he breaks protocols.  This is where the ministers have the authority. President Kiir cannot, and I repeat, cannot, order a minister to violate the law or break protocols if the president has decided to re-direct payments to shady “special projects?”  A minister can say “no” to the president if the law does not allow the president to order the minister. The president supervises the cabinet, but he does not, and should not, run the ministries. He has no authority to re-direct funds away from their allocated ministries unless the cabinet agrees as a collective.

President Kiir is not a monarch. He is a president of a republic. At least I want to believe that.  And the sooner ministers start to tell him, “No, Mr. President, that is against protocol and the constitution” the better things will improve for South Sudanese civilians. And this can only be done by the ministers. They have the authority to defy the president within the law and protocol.

But I am afraid Dr. Lumoro’s response to parliament is reenforcing what some of us have been saying for decades: President Kiir is South Sudan and South Sudan is President Kiir. That is tragic. Lomuro’s doubling-down a few days later, that he was taken out of context, makes the president even appear more monstrous. He retracted the truth he told parliament because he is afraid. Is President Kiir this scary?

What Dr. Lomuro should have added during his response to the parliamentary committee are the procurement protocols that, if they exist, allow the president to “direct payments.”  The president does not have his own laws from which he draws to re-direct payments for “special projects.”  “Special projects” like the one that directed 10 million away from peace implementation to the office of the president are cliched political euphemisms for corrupt practices.

But I know that South Sudan is not a democracy. Almost everyone, tragically, serves at the mercy of the president. The president has become the employer-in-chief. This is a threat to national security, democratization, and the economic prosperity of South Sudan.

It is obvious that telling the President of South Sudan he is wrong may lead to an official being decreed-out of office, or even worse. I am not oblivious. This has been the case even when the official is right. But change must begin somewhere. Dr. Lumoro either does not know he has the authority, a state of affair that would be tragic, or he is just afraid of the president. No one wants to bell the cat.

Yes, Dr. Lumoro has the power. His power are the law and institutional protocols because South Sudan is not France of Louis XVI or England of Henry VIII. Or is it? He can say “no” and take exculpatory refuge in the law and procurement protocols. Otherwise, he is telling us President Kiir is an autocrat who cannot be questioned. Is this what the good minister is telling us without telling us?  

It may be time to start showing the president how to follow the law and respect institutional protocols. He supervises the ministries; he does not run them. Saying “no” to President Kiir is a show of respect and the integrity of the administrations he leads. This is what the youth of South Sudan expect from you.

___________________

Dr. Kuir ë Garang (PhD) is the editor of TPR  Twitter/X handle: @kuirthiy; email: kuirthiy@yahoo.com

Fool, Skeptic and the Slay Queen -- (PART 1)

Photo: by Shorena on VectorStock

It was summer. July. Hot. Being outside was therefore less desirable. There was no air conditioner in their apartment, so Fool and Skeptic spent time in the mall, cooling down. Well, it was Skeptic who loved cooling down in the mall while reading a novel or monograph on some Greek philosophy, mostly pre-Socratic philosophers.

Fool also came with novels or philosophy books with fancy titles he didn’t understand: Morality and Polyamory, Free Will and Determinism, Compatibilism and Free Will, Ubuntu and Power, Aristotelianism and African Philosophy, Phenomenology of Violence, etc. He didn’t read any of them of course. But he fancied the idea of being considered well-read.

“Fool is a well-read man,” he would say to himself looking into the mirror in his room.

For him, it was edifying. He didn’t care about what things meant objectively if people understood them in the way he liked.

But Fool’s favored pastime in the mall, as Skeptic read his books, was to stare intensely at women as they walked by. To avoid being taken for a creep, he used the book to hide his sexualizing and objectifying stares.

“How I wished my son was like you two,” a woman once said as she passed by.

Skeptic was engrossed in his reading. He didn’t hear what the woman had said.

“What did she say?”

Fool smiled: “She said she wished her son was like us.”

“You mean me!”

“Hey, don’t be like that. I have my book, so she was talking about both of us.”

“But if she knew the truth…”

“She doesn’t. So, she’s talking about both of us.”

“Okay, I give that to you,” Skeptic would say and resumed his reading.

Fool would go back to his women-watching as he called it.

As people milled around, Fool described women’ boobs, the size of their legs, the size of their buttocks, the color of their skins, their heights, and any feature that, to Skeptic, was a sexualization of women. To mock Fool, Skeptic called his women-watching, philofoology. It was foolishness personified as an artistic desire for women.  Here are sample descriptions of women in Fool's philofoology (women-watching).

“With that ass, I think God loves you, girl!

“Now, that figure is what I’m talking about!”

“With that beautiful face, I think God must have sipped his favorite wine just before he created you.”

It went on and on until they left the mall.

Men, apparently, did not exist whin philofoology. There was no man-watching. Anyone listening to Fool’s description of passersby would assume there were no men in the mall. But some of the women he described walked together with their husbands or boyfriends. Anytime Skeptic heard lamentations like the ones below, he knew Fool didn’t like what the man was doing. That was the only time men mattered in women-watching.

 “What an idiot!”

 “Look at him waddling like a pregnant duck!”

“Oh, for goodness’s sake, keep your dirty mouth from her soft cheeks!”

 “Thiɔ! Why are you holding her hand in the mall like an insecure half of a man!”

"Look at that potbelly, leading your way like your bodyguard!"

 “Oh, C’mon! How does that cockroach appeal to that beauty?”

“No complain there, you deserve that ugly slay queen.”

"Look at those chicken legs! I can break them with a mere sneeze!"

Fool laughed anytime Skeptic said he sounded like a misandrist. 

"I'm a man. How can I hate men?" Fool responded gleefully. 

But Skeptic didn't mind Fool's jealousy-inspired pseudo-misandry. It was the description of women that bothered him. When Skeptic reprehended him, he would say, “I’m just being Dickensian. Charles Dickens, you know, used to sit by the train station with his notebook and write down descriptions of people passing by.”

Skeptic would look up from his book: “First, that’s not what Dickensian means. Dickensian means his writings or the poor living conditions about which he wrote in England of the industrial revolution, remember? Anyways, Mr. Chauvinist, Dickens wasn’t only writing down descriptions of women.”

“Dickens was a man so don’t bother me…how do you know Charles Dickens wasn’t staring only at women? ‘It was the best of women. It was the worst of men’.”

“Oh Jesus, Fool! Really? So you admit you are only staring at women?”

“No, no, but I…”

Fool suddenly stopped mid-sentence. 

“Slay Queen!” Fool then whispered.

 Skeptic stared disapprovingly at Fool.

“I hate it when you do that!” Fool complained.

“Do what?” Skeptic asked with a frown.

“When you speak through…oh, never mind…she’s coming.”

“Who’s coming, Fool?”

The Slay Queen, as Fool called her, was strutting by with a commanding presence that Fool felt like cat-calling her. Having seen the temptation on Fool’s face, Skeptic stepped disapprovingly on the Fool’s right pinky toe.

“Ouch!” he writhed in pain quietly. He was wearing sandals, so the pain was more intense than it usually was when he wore his Jordans. Not wanting the Slay Queen to hear him yell in pain, he muzzled his moan. 

Fool and Skeptic were not sure about what to say if she accosted them. Girls were their kryptonite. They did not know how to talk to them.  But they knew they had to talk about the Slay Queen as she passed close by without looking at them or even greeting them. Beautiful girls didn't admire people like them, they thought.

But the Slay Queen passed by them anytime they were in the mall. It was as if she knew when they would be in the mall. She was intriguing. With a long, flowing brown wig stopping just above her buttock, yellowish red face, unnecessarily thin stilettos, her behind wiggled. That’s what Fool liked.  But Skeptic noticed that the color of her face was not natural.

“It’s just make-up,” Fool would retort back.

“Look closely. It is not just make-up,” Skeptic would say.

But on that day, she walked past them, stopped for a while and then came back. Fool was watching her from the corner of his eyes as he hid his sexualizing gaze in the book. Skeptic was not paying attention to the Slay Queen. He was, as always, busy reading.

“Hello boys!” she said with an expressionless face. 

Skeptic was startled.  Fool feigned surprise, but he had been watching her movements since she emerged from the corner and walked toward them.

“Hi!” Fool said shyly. 

“I always notice you watching me," she said. 

“Me?” Skeptic asked, surprise written all over his face.

“I apologize on behalf of my friend. We come here to read in a cool place in the company of beautiful folks,” Fool said.

She smiled. Skeptic stared in horror.

“I want to show young people that even in the age of the internet and the social media, reading remains the best way to separate oneself from the crowd,” Fool added proudly.

Skeptic was lost for words. She continued to smile.

“But I thought…”

“Yes, he thought wrong,” Fool added, cutting Skeptic short.

“I wasn’t talking about your friend. I was talking about you,” she said to Fool.

Skeptic smiled as Fool stared, astonished.

“Me? What do you mean?”  Fool asked.

“Your friend is always engrossed in his reading, so he pays no attention to me. I noticed that you pretend to be reading, but you use the book as a cover. People are too busy to notice that you aren’t reading,” she said.

Fool remained silent. Skeptic continued to smile. 

“So, do you like boys who read or boys who don’t?” Skeptic asked.

Fool was still silent. He was embarrassed.

“First, it’s men, not boys. And second, liking someone is determined by a cluster of things. Reading alone cannot cut it,” she said and puckered her lips to the left of her face. 

“Fair enough. But there is one thing that catches your eye first before you consider all other characteristics in the cluster. You can’t see that cluster the first time you see someone you like,” Skeptic said.

“Fair enough. I knew there was something special about you.” she said.

Fool was still silent. But he didn't like her last comment. 

“You don’t talk like a Slay Queen,” Fool finally said.

“Oh, God! Why would you say that?” Skeptic almost screamed at Fool.

He knew Fool was trying to sabotage his chances. 

“It’s okay, boys. I’m used to it. Men always assume I’m less intelligent because of the way I dress. They write me off as brainless until they talk to me. 'Slutty!', they say. But then I open my mouth....and then they get surprised...and then they intimidated,” she said.

“So, you like smart guys?” Fool asked.

“I like who I like, smart or not. There is of course bare minimum in intelligence I would expect.”

Fool smiled. He thought to himself: I have a chance with her.

“I notice you staring at me on the top edge of the book. I do that sometimes. That’s why I notice it.”

“Oh my God! You’re like me,” Fool beamed excitedly.

She shook her head gently: “Not so fast. But I liked you.”

“Oh, oh!” Skeptic said, smiling conspiratorially. 

“’Oh, oh!’ What?” Fool said with a grimace. 

“I think he meant the past tense ‘liked’ in my response,"  she said, explaining what Skeptic meant.

“What does that mean?” Fool asked.

“It means you disappointed her, somehow,” Skeptic said.

“What?” Fool marveled.

“I thought you only stared at me occasionally, and that you liked reading. But I can see now that you don’t like reading at all,” she said.

“So, you like reading? That makes no sense at all” Fool sounded confused. 

“It makes sense if you first try to know a person.”

“But you dress like a Slay Queen, and you bleach your skin.”

“Would you stop it! I can’t believe you!” Skeptic yelled at Fool.

Like a child, Fool had no filters. He paid no attention to the emotional impact of his words on others. He believed people shouldn’t get angry when he spoke truth to them.  Being real, he'd say.

“He’s right,” she said finally.

Skeptic was surprised: “What?”

He expected her to at least deny skin bleaching. What kind of a person admits bleaching without a moral qualm? Skeptic was confused.

“Yes, I use skin lightening creams. But that’s a conversation for another day. See you boys.”

Neither Skeptic nor Fool knew what to think of her. Her fashion style screamed “vain”, “silly,” and “shallow.” But when she opened her mouth, Skeptic only wanted her to keep on talking. She makes more sense than most of his nerdy friends. Nothing about her made sense at all. For Fool, he couldn’t understand how someone so sexy could be so smart and well informed.

 Fool's philofoology had taken an intriguing turn.

(To be continued… )

___________________________________

Written by Kuir ë Garang (PhD). For permission to reprint this story, email me at kuirthiy@yahoo.com 

 

 

 

 

 

SPLM's predatory elitism and the red army’s betrayed generational mission in South Sudan

 Published on Friday, May 17, 2024. 

Photos: WHAS11; City Reviews

'Garang also reiterated the importance of education to the red army as future leaders in his speech to Sudanese refugees in Itang Refugee Camp (also in Western Ethiopia) in 1988. Garang told civilians that Southern and Western Sudanese were excluded from power in Khartoum because they are said to be uneducated. “Why are they not educated?” he asked. He added that “this is why we have built schools for the red army because they are the future generation. No one will say in the future that they are not educated.”'

 

As we yet again commemorate another May 16th, I think about the future of South Sudan through these three generational groups: The SPLA generation, the red army generation, and the youth (as conventionally defined by the United Nations and the African Union). 

When I read in Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth that “Each generation must out of relative obscurity discover its mission, fulfil it, or betray it”, I wonder about the youth in South Sudan and my generation (the red army generation). With the current political and economic situation in South Sudan, the red army generation seems to have betrayed its generational mission.

But is this generation to blame? First, what is this generation and why it is important?

The red army generation, called the lost boys of Sudan in the United States where some of them resettled as refugees in early 2000s, were born in the late 1970s and the early 1980s. To the Southern rebels (1983-2005)—the Sudan’s People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA)—the red army generation was to furnish Sudan with disciplined, educated post-liberation leaders.

Of course, SPLA recruited some of these boys as combat infantry in the 1990s. These older boys, called Jesh el-assuot (black army) informally because they were of fighting age according to the SPLA, were hardly adults as conventionally defined. It is however important to note that the SPLA leadership believed in the education of this generation. With all their short-comings, which are very well documented, SPLA  leaders did not blindly use them all as child soldiers. The future was a haunting presence.

While the use of child soldiers must be condemned, and rightly so, it is important to understand the cultural and the survivalist context in which SPLA recruited and inducted them as child soldiers. This cultural dimension, while not necessarily acceptable per se, must be factored into any analysis of South Sudanese liberation history and all its complex dimensions. It cannot be ignored, or oversimplified, if the present status of the youth and the red army generation in South Sudan is to be properly contextualized.

The SPLA senior leadership also understood that a revolutionary agenda without any strategic plan for the young generation is foolhardy. Speaking in 1988 to Jesh el-amer (the red army) in Pinyudo Refugee Camp in Western Ethiopia, John Garang de Mabior, the co-founder of SPLM/SPLA and its ideological architect, said that the duty of the red army generation is “to re-build the country.”  Garang added that “my responsibility and the responsibility of my generation will be to dismantle Old Sudan…we will raze it to the ground.”

Garang also reiterated the importance of education to the red army as future leaders in his speech to Sudanese refugees in Itang Refugee Camp (also in Western Ethiopia) in 1988. Garang told the civilians that Southern and Western Sudanese were excluded from power in Khartoum because they are said to be uneducated. “Why are they not educated?” he asked. He added that “this is why we have built schools for the red army because they are the future generation. No one will say in the future that they are not educated.”

The importance of education for the red army is also underscored by the decision by the SPLA to send about 600 young men and women to Cuba in the mid-1980s for education. Another important educational program encouraged by the SPLA leadership to educate the red army generation produced scholars of Face Foundation of Polotaka, Eastern Equatoria.

Additionally, in refugee camps (Itang, Pinyudo, Dima, Kakuma, etc) where the red army settled, SPLA appointed leaders to supervise them. They emphasized the importance of education to aid agencies providing relief services in these camps. On a personal note, I completed elementary and high school in Kakuma Refugee Camp due to SPLM’s emphasis on education. It is with this emphasis on education that a prominent SPLA commander, after talking to my mother in 1995 in Mangalatore Displace Camp, accepted to take me to Kakuma Refugee Camp in Kenya. Schools in Mangalatore were poor. Because of the itinerant nature of internally displaced persons, I found it difficult to benefit from constantly interrupted schooling.

DR.  JOHN GARANG DE MABIOR ON LEADERSHIP, SERVICE PROVISION, AND ACCOUNTABILITY

With this emphasis on education and the red army as future leaders, why then are the youth and the red army generation marginalized in South Sudan?

The obvious answer is what SPLM leaders have become. Instead of building an inclusive economy and democracy, or allowing the red army generation to play that role, SPLM has built a self-enrichment kleptocracy where a coterie of powerful political and military elites siphon state resources to foreign banks. Within this system, the youth is seduced into it or marginalized. This predatory “gun class”, as South Sudanese scholar an former minister Majak D’Agoot calls them, has become callously parasitic on state resources.  So the conditions in which the youth and the red army generation could fulfil their generational mission, in state-building for instance, are non-existent.

As D’Agoot has noted, “SPLA has morphed into a degenerative gun-toting aristocracy that straddles the sociocultural, political, and economic spheres like a colossus.” This has enabled a predatory elitism, an elite-centred economic system of reciprocity. They have made it the political and economic culture in the country. The youth and the red army generation joins them because it pays. Others join this predatory elite on ethno-centric basis. The generational mission has become an inconvenience or a threat to personal safety.

To stop the gun class from money-laundering, the United States sent Sigal Mandelker, the Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, to Kenya and Uganda, which have become money-laundering hubs for South Sudanese gun class. After Mandelker’s visit, money laundering continues. State-building and service provision have been abandoned.  

Instead of being allowed to fulfil their generational mission, the youth and the red army generation face arbitrary arrests, tortures at national security secret locations, and the unexplained disappearances. Frustrations has also caused self-destructive decisions for this generation. The rebellion and subsequent assassination by the South Sudanese army of businessman and philanthropist, Kerubino Wol, and the arrest by the FBI of Dr. Peter Biar Ajak, resulted from these generational frustrations. It is the attempt by the youth and the red army generation to fulfil their generational missions that puts them in trouble with the South Sudanese national security.

Those in positions of power are appointed through nepotistic arrangements or through political cronyisms. They are mere tokens without real power. For instance, the deputy governor of Jonglei State, Atong Kuol Manyang, is the daughter of a powerful former SPLA commander, Kuol Manyang Juuk. Kuol is also a senior advisor to President Kiir. The deputy Mayor of the city of Juba, Thiik Thiik Mayardit, is the nephew of President Salva Kiir.

The governor of Jonglei State, Mr. Denay Jock Chagor, the national minister of health, Ms. Yolanda Awel Deng Juach, and the national minister of petroleum, Mr. Kang Chol, are among the red army generation who were appointed through the revitalized agreement for the resolution of the conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCISS) signed by SPLM-In-Government and SPLM-In-Opposition in 2018. SPLM leaders find it nearly impossible to appoint the youth and the red army generation into positions of power on merit.

Co-opted South Sudanese youth and the red army generation must therefore reject SPLM’s predatory elitism however solvent. Otherwise, corrupt, and self-centred leaders in their 60s, 70s, and 80s will continue to be the past, the present, and the future of the country.  

 ___________

Dr. Kuir ë Garang is the editor of TPR. 

South Sudanese Youth Complicity in their Systemic Marginality

Top: Dr. Peter Biar Ajak (left) and President Salva Kiir (right)

Below: Minister of Petroleum, Mr. Puot K. Chol (left) and late Mr. Kerubino Wol (right)

In South Sudan, the youth is marginalized and confused. These are obvious realities to South Sudanese at home and abroad. The reason for this confusion and marginality is, however, not so apparent. We may fault culturally inspired political ageism. But that is easy.

So, making sense of how political ageism marginalizes the youth needs more than the proposition that ageism is to blame. The youth themselves enable the system that keeps them at the margin of power and decision-making in the country.

Of course, the structural dynamics of youth economic and political marginality, which is outside youth control, is not something I downplay. The youth are, however, not helpless bystanders in the ageism power matrix. They are complicit as pawns of the elite and ethnic chauvinists.

The youth, who are ethnic chauvinists or wannabe-elite make political ageism effective and marginalizing. These youth do not mind septuagenarians or octogenarians monopolizing politics and economics if these youth join, or are favored by, the political and economic elite.  South Sudanese scholar, Majak D’Agoot, has referred to this youth-marginalizing South Sudanese elite as the “gun class.”

An Analysis of the land issue in the Equatorias

In this case the youth support the gun class, however incompetent and corrupt, because these leaders come from their tribe.  They complain that the older generation is not giving the youth a share of power. However, these marginalized youth support leaders who tell 40-year-olds that they are “leaders of tomorrow.”  For instance, some local youth associations in South Sudan are headed by “youth” in their mid-40s. This is why, on April 17, 2023, Daniel Mwaka, a South Sudanese youth leader, suggested that the youth age bracket in South Sudan be delimited at 35.

South Sudan's 2024 Elections: "Salva Kiir Forever!"

Photo: Ontario Municipal and School Board Elections

It is obvious that the scheduled elections in South Sudan in 2024 will not be free and fair. This is something the SPLM-in-Opposition has reiterated. Conditions in the country are not conductive for the conduct of free and fair elections, they have noted. 

So why would anyone want to take part in such elections? This is a very good question. Why would anyone indeed?

I don't have any convincing answer. But I have my answer (s), nonetheless. 

Ironically, supporters of President Kiir, the chairman of the SPLM-in-Government, ask a contrary question: Why wouldn't anyone want to take part in elections?

This is the same question the governor of Lakes State, Riiny Tueny Mabor, asked recently in the SPLM rally in Wau: "There are people who say, the elections should not be conducted? Why shouldn't they be conducted?" 

He either doesn't think there are any reasons to the contrary, or he doesn't care if such reasons exist. 

SPLM-IG supporters, who do not need any reason to justify why President should be president, find it irrational that there are people who are jittery about 2024 elections. They are not only confident about the elections happening this year, but they also take the permanence of the presidency of Kiir with a very dangerous intuitiveness. 

As the governor of Warrap State, Manhiem Bol Malek, said during the rally in Wau, it is "Salva Kiir forever! Forever!"

Imagine...forever!

The following sad facts do not bother Kiir's supporters: Millions of South Sudanese are refugees in neighboring countries; no passable roads; there is rampant insecurity; increasing intra and inter-ethnic feuds, flooding; hunger and diseases, etc. 

These are of course mere political theatrics. We see this everywhere. A Trump rally in the United States or a Neo-Nazi rally in Germany or Italy would have similar uncritical, emotionally charged remarks. 

About The Peer-Review Process - Things to Note!

Photo: https://undsci.berkeley.ed

The peer-review process can be frustrating and, in some cases, downright depressing. You can spend excruciating months slaving on a paper only for the paper to be rejected by the journal editor before it even goes through the peer-review process. I have experienced this!

Sometimes your manuscript passes editorial review only for the reviewers to recommend the rejection of the manuscript. The editor usually follows this advice and rejects your paper. I have experienced this too!

In other cases, your paper can pass editorial review, then the reviewers after extensive reading of the paper ask for minor revisions or major revisions to improve the paper before they recommend it for acceptance. The onus is on the editor to ask you to address the reviewers' comments. These comments are usually sent to you (author) by the editor. There is no direct communication between you, the author, and the anonymous peer-reviewers.

Here is an important reminder. Addressing the reviewers' comments can test your patience, professionalism, and the ability to accept being corrected or challenged by your peers. Some reviewers are kind and very professional. They only want to help you improve the quality of your paper. Some, however, can be unreasonable. They can ask for revisions that would completely overhaul your paper. Sad! But true!

Yet, the onus is on you professionally to address or reject some of the suggestions and respectfully explain why you are not going to include their suggestions in the paper, or how you have addressed the suggestions/concerns.

Sometimes reviewers may ask you to address what you have already addressed in the paper. You have to, respectfully, remind them. At times they misunderstand or misconstrue your argument. Again, you must respectfully and professionally, however annoyed you are, explain how and where they may have misunderstood or misconstrued your argument.

Another reminder. Be careful when reviewers say "these are only suggestions. You can choose to ignore them." You don't have to accept all suggestions, but you must show how you have addressed all suggestions including the "only suggestions."

Note that failure properly to address the reviewers' comments may lead to the rejection of the paper by the editor even after the 'minor revision' suggestions.

Patience! This process can take months to years. Imagine...for just one paper! (One of my papers was with a journal for nearly three years before it was accepted.)

Here are some pointers to note if you are considering sending a paper to a peer-reviewed journals.

1. You need patience, a thick skin, and humility. You will be reviewed by people who have been researching the topic for decades. Sometimes graduate students start to doubt themselves after several rejections: "May be I'm not cut out for this!"
2. You can send your manuscript to colleagues for some valuable critiques before you submit the manuscript to the journal. This is recommended.
3. Pick a journal before you write a paper. Check the journal's aim and scope. The first thing the editor does is to check if your paper fits within the journal's scope. Journals only publish within a defined scope. Your paper may be excellent. But it will be rejected outright if it is outside the scope and aim of the journal. Some courteous journal editors may recommend another, suitable, journal for your manuscript. This is rare but it happens.
4. Keep the words count in mind and adhere to the referencing style the journal uses. They are very strict on this. If they want APA, do not send them a manuscript written in Chicago or MLA.
5. If the paper is within the journal's scope, the next thing the editor checks is whether your paper contributes anything new to the body of knowledge. If the answer is "no" then the editor will reject it through a professionally written rejection email. That's it. Some editors, depending on their reading of the manuscript, may ask you to address the weaknesses in the manuscript to improve it beyond its current form. They may ask you to send it back for review consideration. Remember, no guarantees it will pass editorial review the second time. If the editorial review answer answer is "yes" then the paper is sent for peer-review. Then you wait! It can be an excruciatingly long wait. Anxiety high!
6. Reviewers check the manuscript for its location within the scholarly literature. Sometimes reviewers will suggest authors you have not referenced if they believe they will help enrich the paper. They check what the paper contributes that has not been addressed. Sometimes you think your idea is new but then the reviewer points you to a scholar who has already made the same argument/discovery.  They ask if your argument is persuasive? They also look for structural coherence, theoretical/conceptual framework (is there one?), methodology, and whether or not the paper is actually theoretically informed. An author may use a theory that does nothing to advance the argument in the paper. Some reviewers check for grammatical errors, typos, and sentential coherence, and clarity. Sometimes the journal will give reviewers guidelines regarding what to check in a manuscript as they review the paper.
7. During the review process, things are unpredictable. Reviewers may say, "Reject" and explain why; "Accept" with minor revisions or major revisions. They suggest how to improve the paper or where they disagree with you. Sometimes they say "minor revisions" but the revisions can be extensive...not so minor. It is up to you to assess which suggestions to accept and which ones to reject. But you must remember that without reviewers' recommending your paper for publication, the editor will reject your paper. You must make responding to reviewers sound like a professional discourse between peers. Be open-minded. You must also respond to the reviews within a specified time-frame (by the editor) otherwise the paper would be considered a new "submission" even if it was recommended for publication. Be time conscious when responding to reviewers' recommendations/suggestions. 
8. Sometimes Reviewer 1 can say "Accept", but review 2 says "Reject." The paper is then sent to a third reviewer to break the deadlock. Note that the reviewers' don't know who you are. The paper is reviewed anonymously. Reviewers only know your identity once the paper is published. The reviews are mostly anonymous unless the journal de-anonymizes the peer-review process as a matter of policy. There are journals like that. This must be stated clearly in the "about" section of the journal. 
9. Some journals charge article processing fees while others charge article publication fees. Some journals, in fact most of the reputation ones, do not charge any fees. Check the journal guidelines.

So, my friends, go ahead and write on! Here is the link to some of my peer-reviewed publications:  (https://kuirgarang.com/research). Click on the publications to go to the journals. Check what I have called "aim and scope" of the journal. They all have it.

_________________

Kuir ë Garang (PhD) is a researcher and the editor of The Philosophical Refugee.

Sovereignty as Responsibility

 

Sovereignty as responsibility

"My house is still under water. There are a lot of snakes and reptiles. The place is still a river; it's no longer a home. So how can I go back." Nyawal Makuei speaking to Aljazeera.

This, as you may have noticed from Nyawal's recollection about her state of despair, is about state responsibility to its citizens. 

In 1996, Dr. Francis Mading Deng, who was the United Nations Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide between May 29^th, 2007 and July 17, 2012, published a book, Sovereignty as Responsibility: Conflict Management in Africa, with Sadikiel Kimaro, Terrence Lyons, Donald Rothchild, and I. William Zartman through The Brookings Institution. 

So, what is sovereignty as responsibility? Here is Dr. Francis Mading Deng explaining what sovereignty as responsibility is.

Dr. Francis Mading Deng. 
Photo: Sudan Tribune

Dr. Francis Mading Deng: 

"The idea was to tell governments,  I realize this is an internal matter; it falls under your sovereignty. I'm respectful of your sovereignty, but I don't see sovereignty as a negative concept. I see it as a positive concept of a state responsibility for its people. If needs be with the help of the international community." 

So, what does this mean in the context of the South Sudanese state and its responsibility to its citizens? Did the South Sudanese government and its leaders consider sovereignty as responsibility, or have they rationalized it as power to intimidate civilians, enrich themselves with state resources, and terrorize critics however factually accurate these critics are regarding the situation.

To answer this question, let’s go back July 2011. What did South Sudanese leaders think and what did citizens feel? Here’s a glimpse. 

Aljazeera Report: 

"A nation is born, a symbol of sovereignty and identity flies for the first time. It's seen in South Sudan as nothing less than electric. Hundred of thousands of people converge in Juba, the world's newest capital city. They celebrated their long-waited independence marked by two civil wars over five decades, and countless lives lost."

The people were, understandably, ecstatic!  For the leaders, at the time, understood the challenge they face. But they promised to lead, provide for the citizens and prove South Sudanese, distractors, according to President Kiir, wrong. 

South Sudan's President, Salva Kiir Mayardit.

Here is President Kiir on July 9^th, 2011.

“My Dear compatriots South Sudanese, the eyes of the world are on us.

Our well-wishers including those who are now sharing with us the joy of this tremendous event will be watching closely to see if our very first steps in nationhood are steady and confident. They will surely want to see us as a worthwhile member of the international community by shunning policies that may draw us into confrontation with others.

They will be happy to see us succeed economically and want us to enjoy political stability. What this means is that the responsibilities of South Sudan will now be accentuated more than ever before, requiring that we rise to the challenge accordingly. It is my ardent belief that you are aware that our detractors have already written us off, even before the proclamation of our independence. They say we will slip into civil war as soon as our flag is hoisted. They justify that by arguing we are incapable of resolving our problems through dialogue. They charge that we are quick to revert to violence. They claim that our concept of democracy and freedom is faulty. It is incumbent upon us to prove them all wrong!”

What happened two years later is something for which I’m not going to remind you by way of explanation. Sovereignty became a quest for power rather than a responsibility to citizens.

Aljazeera's Report: 

"This used to be a road until it disappeared under water mid-last year. Now, the only way to get around in this part of South Sudan is by boats and canoes. It's the worst flood this region has seen in sixty years. In this areas, every home is abandoned. Families had no choice but to leave."  

Flood is obviously a naturally phenomenon. South Sudanese leaders did not cause it. But they have a responsibility to support civilians that have been displaced by the flood. They have failed. But that is not all. 

Here is John Kuok suffering from what President Kiir said would not happen. It seems like the distractors, sadly, have been proven right.

John Kuok, an internally displaced person, speaking to Aljazeera:

"It was no only 2013 where out colleagues and my brother were killed. Even during the struggle [against Khartoum] my brothers were also killed. So, when it repeated itself, it was horrible."

Ccontrary to President Kiir’s assurance on Independence Day: South Sudanese were “quick to revert to violence.”

However, Crises are everywhere. The main problem is their inability to solve problems, and their penchant for the abdication of state responsibility.

Here is South Sudan’s minister of information and the government spokesperson, Michael Makuei, about the challenges facing South Sudan’s peace partners regarding the integration of government and the opposition armies as stipulated in the revitalized agreement for the resolution of conflict in South Sudan.

Michael Makuei to VOA: 

"I said this agreement was never to be implemented, because, I said, the international community that supported us and gave us he assurances that. 'you sign this agreement; we will stand with you, and we will implement it with you. Just immediately after the signature, they sad back, and began to tell us, 'you implement it. You must be seen to be moving.' We asked them as said by my colleague, Stephen...we asked them to come for our support. Only very few friendly countries managed to do something for us." 

But here is Francis Mading, reminding governments about their responsibility to citizens.

"[Sovereignty as responsibility] also meant the responsibility had to be apportioned or reapportioned. Instead of depending on the supper powers, the states had to assume their responsibility for managing their situation. If they need help to call on the international community to help; and only in extreme cases where there is large suffering, massive amount of suffering and death.

There is no doubt that South Sudan still faces enormous challenges 12 years after independence. My advice to South Sudanese leaders is to prioritize the interest of citizens and regard sovereignty as responsibility bestowed on them by (1) the referendum votes; (2) the suffering of our people by fifty years of the liberation struggle, and (3) by the blood of those who died in the liberation struggle.

______________________

Kuir ë Garang