Why our ‘Intellectual Journey’ doesn’t lead to ‘a Coherent Political Ideology’

Charity begins at home and the originator of that charity most likely ends at home.

I was advised by some colleagues several times to join a certain policy forum. I refused three times citing the fact that the forum is too 'elitist' and most of the times the elites are out of touch with the average folks like me. When the reminders to join the forum became really constant, even from people I've not met personally but know me from my writings, I finally gave in and joined the forum.

My innocent assumption was that the forum would merely be a discussion or critiquing of policies that'd be beneficial to the country. I expected to see policy suggestions [only] and how they could be modified and perfected into usable policies for the government of South Sudan.

Naïve me! I was disappointed to realize that the debates were no different from those vexatious ones on my Facebook wall: circular, partisan, hypocritical, dishonest with education taken at face-value. Big theories are suggested without context! Partisanship is so much intellectualized that it takes one through rigorous analysis to discern disguised partisanship. My disillusionment became so intense that I had to unsubscribe from the forum in less than two weeks.

Believe me, if leaders argue with ‘take it or leave it’ conditionals then I wonder how the leadership we have (or are building) inside and outside the government of South Sudan can be salvageable. Leadership is about relationship building and bringing the best out of people (Corrales, 2007). The purpose of leadership, Corrales argues, can only be achieved through building of strong relationships. Are our leaders (inside and outside) the government doing that? Even Dr. Nyaba, who’s done more through writing than anyone in South Sudan to highlight the problems we have in the country, does little to build relationships with ‘the other side’ or even within the Chollo community leadership. It’s always a blame-game (see IGAD’s ‘Peace Talks’ & Arusha Intra-SPLM dialogue).

WHY YOU SHOULD BE SCARED OF WESTERN SCHOLARS!

If you are to be scared of anyone in the 'West' then you should be scared of university professors and scholars. The university system is set up in a manner that seems to suggest that everybody is wrong but nobody is wrong; something is wrong but nothing is wrong; we're equal but no we're not...we know but we don't know...I'll praise you in order to undermine you; I'll smile at you but who told you I even like you at all?...

I'm not scared of the Racist with a gun, a knife, a bible...or a Racist CEO of a company! I'm scared of the western university professor writing books and articles; who sets curricula, advise the politicians and capitalists. They are the ones who determine where our sun sets! They determine whether you'll be stopped by the police, or whether that little 'white' kid will call you a nigger, or whether or not kids starve in Africa. But then...but then...they'll be the very same people trying to devise methods to prevent what they started!

Afrocentric scholars like Dr. Ben Yochannan, Cheikh Anta Diop,George James wrote extensively about Egypt and Africa...The 'west' simply dismissed their works as 'myths'  of Africans, with no history or contribution to western civilization, trying to make themselves significant by inserting themselves into the achievements of the West through Egypt! They were Africans so no one took them seriously! But when Martin Bernal (who is not African) published the 'Black Athena' it became really heard to ignore a European's voice of an Ivy League school, who made some of the very same claims that were made by Dr. Ben, Diop, James and others.

The emotional response to Martin Bernal's book would convince you why programs asking you to feed hungry African kids will continue to share air-time with programs asking you to contribute towards saving animals from extinction!

'Black Athena Revisited', a rebuttal to Martin Bernal's claims about the 'Afroasiatic' origin of Greek civilization betrayed the 'objective' nature of western scholarship! Hasty dismissiveness and scholarly emotionalism appalled me! The more I read classical and historical texts, the more I see that the perception of the African person in North America has never changed since the 17th century!

What we see now in North America, which seems to give us an impression of equality is what late Derrick Bell calls Interest-Convergence. Being harsh on the African is bad for business but not 'objectively' bad!

An Open Letter to South Sudan’s Rebel Leader, Dr. Riek Machar

It’s common knowledge that you are one of the most divisive figures in South Sudan’s political life whether you intended it or not. And that will go down in history as part of your leadership and political legacy. It doesn’t matter who’s to blame for all the historical mishaps you’ve been involved in; history will always remember you in a manner that’s outside your perception of yourself. And it’s a personality tragedy you seem to brush aside as you continue to bargain and fight for your political life.

Tribalism

More than 90 % of your camp [military and political] is made up of your tribesmen. Your supporters can blame circumstances surrounding December 15, 2013 mutiny in Juba and subsequent incidences thereafter. My judgement tells me that you didn’t start the problems that brought us to the current crisis; however, you contributed to the crisis in many ways than one. Corruption flourished while you were still the Vice President, your office employees, like those of many other ministers, were from your tribe and you wanted to shut down SPLM-DC. Besides, you criticized your own boss [Kiir] while you were still VP. Those factors don’t belong in a resume of a democrat, who sees himself as a genuine reformer.

And what is even more appalling is how you see yourself as a national leader when you rely exclusively on your fellow Nuer. The few non-Nuer in your camp joined you not out of your exemplary leadership but for the mere convergence of your grievances against the government. With no doubt, these folks had bones to pick with the government. What gives you some semblance of credence isn’t what you offer but what the government of President Kiir isn’t doing.

·         You are as tribalist just as Kiir Mayardit is.

·         You are bargaining for political power and that’s what Kiir is doing.

·         Your camp is mostly Nuer and Kiir’s camp is mostly Jieeng.

·         Both of your camps have committed atrocities.

·         And more importantly, none of you seems to strike a tone that promises the advent of peace in South Sudan.

·         President Kiir has a tribal militia and so do you.

·         Your deputy is from Central Equatoria, your army chief and your spokesperson are from your Tribe. That’s the same thing Kiir has done.

I don’t see how you could claim to be any better than Kiir. If you are, then you’re still to show us.

War Atrocities

You were once asked by a journalist to apologize to South Sudanese regarding the atrocities committed by your forces. Against all required logic and democratic sense of nationalism, you asked the journalist who you should apologize to; arguing that you are a victim. Not only did that burry any shred of leadership decency and nationalism, you portrayed yourself as a selfish megalomaniac.

So many South Sudanese people died in this war. As someone who considers himself a national leader, you owe it to them to comfort them whether you are to blame or not. And the apology being asked isn’t meant for President Kiir, who’s equally required to apologize for his camp’s atrocities, but for the affected South Sudanese.

A nonbeliever but not an Atheist!

Many people believe that if you don’t believe in any kind of god then you are automatically an ‘atheist.’ However, I don’t believe in god but I don’t label myself as an atheist. Many atheists, though not all, don’t believe in god not because there’s absolutely no god but because they don’t have any proof that god exists. I don’t know whether they’d believe in god should someone prove beyond any reasonable doubt that god does indeed exist or if god all of a sudden comes and proves by himself/herself that he/she does indeed exist.

I don’t see myself as an atheist because my nonbelief isn’t based on the existence or the nonexistence of god. Whether or not god exists, I still wouldn’t believe in god. I don’t see any role god plays in my life whether or not he/she exists. The tenets of life which I apply to value every human beings are internal to me not imposed from without. So I don’t see any reason why some ‘heavenly’ being would be interested in my praising him and condemning myself in order to win favors.

A powerful god would make me what he/she wants me to be anyway if he/she is the one who created me; so showering him/her with praises to win favors sounds like what many Africans do to their dictators. What’s the difference between an African dictator and a god who fancies being praised? The aim is to win favors in the government and national resources from the African leaders and to win afterlife in the case of god. I know this sounds simplistic but this is the state of affairs with the god thing. Prayers belittle gods and are superfluous for us.

So the onus is on god to tell me why I should believe in him.

While I don’t believe in god, I don’t go around denigrating religious people. Human beings are fallacious and weak entities and we thrive on fancies and imagination. To try to destroy that is complete utopia. People prefer to feel good rather than be right. We lie so many times to make our friends feel good even when we know we are lying. That’s the essence of our human-ness.

I understand atheists have the best of intentions. They don’t discriminate anyone on any basis and they’d want people to use logic, reason and science to be the basis of our life. But that sounds like the very same utopia of heavenly afterlife religious people have drummed onto our eardrums for centuries if not millennia!

To try to institutionalize atheism as an antagonistic organization against institutionalized religions is as fallacious and as wrong as the utopia church leaders have tried for centuries.

The beauty of not believing in god is the personalized understanding of oneself and what one wants in life and the moral standing one forges for oneself and exercises towards fellow human beings. Nonbelief could exist as clubs and professional associations but not as a proselytizing institution.

Religions is not bad as a concept in itself. What makes it unpalatable is its being as an institution. Institutionalization of atheism in a church-manner is a mockery of logic and reason.

An Open Letter to President Kiir Mayardit

Leaders the world over think about two paramount things: the PRIMACY of the citizens’ needs and the LEGACY they leave behind long after they have gone. It seems, Mr. President, you think less about the two mentioned above and more about staying in power. There is one thing you have to remember as you stay on: time will come when you’ll be gone either by political necessity or by biological and physiological necessity.

Power ends, but your legacy will not end regardless of what it is. You might go down in history as the first and the worst president South Sudan will ever have; or you can change course and be the best leader South Sudanese will remember for generations to come. The onus is on you!

Here are some things to consider as we begin the New Year.

You are the President

The only person who has the ultimate say in what happens in South Sudan is you. Sometimes your speeches and interviews don’t reflect that. When asked once by a journalist when peace would be realized in South Sudan, you asked the journalist to ‘go and ask Riek Machar.’ That was both ‘unpresidential’ and irresponsible. You were mandated with confidence by South Sudanese in order to do things for them and in order to show optimistic way forward. Riek Machar is a man who’s shown time and again that he wants to lead South Sudan. That we understand very well. However, he’s not the president of South Sudan. You claim legitimacy but you fall short of portraying that. It’s time you remembered that you are the president of South Sudan so act like it. Professing being the president is not what presidency is about; you have to act in the interest of the people.

Stop talking and acting as if there’s someone else; someone who’s actually the decision maker in South Sudan! As the president, you need to account for the atrocities committed by people under your command. Riek Machar will account for his own atrocities. As president of South Sudan, who still has Nuer leaders in your government, what would you tell millions of Nuer, who lost their loved ones in December of 2013? You are the president so answer them like a president!

The Peace Talks

Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was made possible because there was a will to bring peace and the understanding that Sudanese had had enough of war. Taha and Garang, in the interest of Sudanese people, took charge of the talks, showed courageous leadership and made very painful concessions.

Honourable Kuol Manyang Juuk and the New Breed of Sexist Young Men

If you don’t know who is who in a crowd then generalize them in good faith and you’ll soon know who is who. Bad advice but it works! So I’ll lump up the majority of South Sudanese young men as sexist unless they distinguish themselves otherwise.

I know each and every society has its normative and traditional parameters used by its people. It’s obviously remarkable that every society considers its cultural tenets central to its way of life, and to some extent, free of error.

This is of course a fallacy for any given human social construct is always fraught with mistakes. However, societies that face criticisms given the inhumanity of some of their cultural practices take refuge in cultural relativism. And this has led to resistance to change by some cultures.

Luckily, the world has grown to a point in which unacceptable human practices are getting challenged as revolutionized means of communication have opened up closed societies in ways never seen before. Societies are no longer closed and therefore can’t oppress some members of their societies without such injustice being heard.

Sexists, Racists, Dictators, embezzlers, religious bigots… are exposed and bashed on regular basis.

This doesn’t mean injustice and harmful cultural and social practices aren’t taking place. They still take place in the cover of darkness. Sexist, enslavers, racists, immoral capitalists, war-mongers, rapists…still exist. What’s comforting is that the above perpetrators know the contemporary societies don’t approve of their practices.

The famed James Dewey Watson, the Noble Prize winning co-discover of DNA double helix, fell from grace for his racist remarks and was shunned by the scientific community; and the American beloved comedian, Bill Cosby, is now falling from grace for the way he treated women.

Among the sad practices that still haunt us today is men’s attitude toward women. This is an attitude that exist in almost all human societies. Even seemingly progressive societies like western countries still have a lot to do when it comes to women rights. Women are still paid less than men, they face domestic violence, have hard times when they vie for elected offices, have difficulty moving up corporate ladders… etc. However, western societies have done relatively better than other societies.

Even young, educated men in some societies such as South Sudan still think stereotyping women is acceptable because “it’s part of our culture.” These young men think talking about rights of women is a ‘western’ concept. What a pathetic state of mind! Women rights are human rights applicable to all societies. When did it become a western idea that women shouldn’t be compared to cowardly men? Women in the west didn’t always have the same rights they have now so calling respect for women a western concept is to miss the point. Everyone human society progresses not retrogress and some norms of 100 years ago aren’t even mentionable now. The word ‘Negro’ was an acceptable reference to African Americans in the 1950s and 1960s but mentioning it now is almost an anathema. About 200 years ago Africans were sold like sheep.

Societies change. And it’s the acceptable change that’s welcome.

 And it’s bizarre for an educated man to think that saying a cowardly man is a women isn’t insulting to women. It might have been okay for African men to insult their women 50 – 100 years ago but to say it’s cultural to use analogies that denigrate women now is a scary state of mind.

The recent remarks by South Sudan's defense minister, Kuol Manyang, comparing cowardly men with women can be understood or excused in the context of the society he grew up in. It shouldn’t be condoned, however. It has no place in the current society Kuol lives in. And what is even appalling is how educated, young South Sudanese believe such sexist, inflammatory remarks are ‘not a problem.’ We all know the context in which Kuol uttered the statement but it’s really mindless to say that we can condone such a statement because it was uttered by Kuol Manyang, a government official. We can say Kuol only wanted to raise the morale of his soldiers and scare other ‘men’ to join the army. But did Kuol Manyang have to make fun of women to make a point?

With such an attitude, I believe girls and women in South Sudan should sharpen their spears because the upcoming breed of young leaders is full of mindless, robotic sexists, who wouldn’t hesitate to endorse sexism in the name of culture and Afrocenticity.

This makes me wonder how such a breed of leaders would be able to take issues like rape and women rights seriously. Is it the support of leaders that has completely blinded some of our able-minded young men and that they’d change if the issue of support ceases to be a problem? Or is this the actual state of affairs in South Sudan?

Nations are not built by whiners

South Sudanese still have, by and large, a very long way to go when it comes to development of a unifying, enduring sense of nationhood or statehood. As things stand now, we are merely a collection of tribal nationalities with conflicting interests.  In the past, our only unifying factors were our common struggle against the oppression from Khartoum and the fact that we were enclosed by the same geopolitical boundary set by the colonial dividers of Africa in 18^th and 19^th centuries.

The gravest onus is now on us to create a sense of ‘South Sudan-ness’; an identity that’d make an Acholi of South Sudan identify more with Zande of South Sudan rather than with Acholi in Uganda. This is by no means an easy task; however, it’s a task we’ve neglected in vain search for tribal voice and hegemony. We’ve become a nation of whiners, who offer nothing by way of alternative solutions.

Whining, polemics and acrimonious writs have become our source of solace. We keyboard divisive pomposity and verbosity that make us feel good about ourselves but at the end of the day contribute towards the divisiveness the same writing was supposed to combat. With no doubt, this has become an oxymoron that typifies what it means to be a South Sudanese; an that’s a sense of self we wouldn’t want to be our defining identity.

Everyone in South Sudan has become a whiner!

The President of the country and his officials have become nothing but a bunch of whiners, who believe everything that’s wrong with South Sudan isn’t their incompetence but a work of some evil man called Riek Machar. The officials whine about international community favoring rebels, about UNMISS siding with Riek’s forces, about journalists siding with rebels, about IGAD’s impartiality, about the venue of the ‘Peace Talks’ and about everything!

Respectable leaders don’t just whine incessantly. They only point out all the obstacles and problems they face and then rush to suggest workable solutions and alternatives. If these whiners say anything as an alternative, it’s always something that benefits them. South Sudanese citizens only feature as pawns in the leaders’ quest for power and wealth.

The rebels, who present themselves as a clean alternative to the government, are nothing but another bunch of the same: opportunistic whiners. They whine about President Kiir remaining president, about IGAD’s partiality, about government atrocities while forgetting their own atrocities, about Nuer marginalization when Nuer still stand next to Kiir and fight against fellow Nuer who are part of government’s forces, about dictatorship when they were part of the same system they just left…etc.

If the rebels think they are a formidable alternative to the government then why is it that we only hear the problem stalling the talks being the issue of power-sharing? Why is it the question of who’s to have what powers that’s the problem? Why’s anything in the interest of the citizens taking back stage?

We’ve seen so far what the rebels are! They’ve whined their way from complaints about internal reforms within SPLM to their claim on South Sudanese echelons of power. For the rebels to be seen as credible voice fighting on behalf of South Sudanese citizens, it has to be clear at the talks that they represent the people.

And South Sudanese tribes have mastered the art of whining. The Jieeng whine about Nuer being prone to violent rebellion and Riek Machar being the ultimate killer while forgetting the atrocities committed by a government controlled largely by Jieeng men. Jieeng’s self-righteousness has a lot to do with everything that’s wrong in South Sudan.

Nuer too complain about being marginalized by the Jieeng while Nuer officials still hold senior positions in both the government and the rebellion. The third most powerful man in South Sudan, Magok Rundial, the current speaker of the national assembly, is a Nuer. While hundreds of Nuer civilians were brutally massacred in cold-blood by government’s forces in Juba in December, it’s always prudent to remember that Nuer forces, let by the notorious White Army, have also committed atrocities. There’s respect in accepting one’s wrongs before labelling accusations on others.