Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
SPLM at Cross Roads
Sudan can pride itself for having a huge number of political thinkers and idealists.. problem is there is what vision for the country we are we going to wholly embrace as common source of inspiration for us to move on to a better society? Nelson Mandela, the former president of South Africa, clearly stated personal vision and mission when he was elected in 1994 to lead the first truly post-apartheid government " to carve out new broad space where pulses could settle, enmity subdued and affinities become recast".
We must say we lead his people towards that foundational goal.
SPLM has all the opportunity to the advantage of being a ruling party in the South of Sudan to to carve out a new broader space to settle some if not all the bad war time legacies and recast relationships in ways that will generate hope for a better future.
The problem is that SPLM's vision seems to have deemed a bit amids the daily struggle for the party to rebuild shattered economy, broken relations and built new alliances.
People's perceptions of what SPLM's vision is has got muddled so much that the common man and woman is left to wonder what was it that inspired people to go to war in the first place.
In th daily political conversations and debates which is going on through various media that the current political space could permit, four categories of people are observed displaying equally four broad behavior patterns:
In th coming posting I will go on to present SPLM's vision as it is stated in its literature, then I will move on to discuss the divergent perceptions on it, its consequences and what options SPLM as a party a fast growing party particularly in the North can pursue.
But most important, reader, I would like you to share with me your comments and perspectives on this topic
Alesio
We must say we lead his people towards that foundational goal.
SPLM has all the opportunity to the advantage of being a ruling party in the South of Sudan to to carve out a new broader space to settle some if not all the bad war time legacies and recast relationships in ways that will generate hope for a better future.
The problem is that SPLM's vision seems to have deemed a bit amids the daily struggle for the party to rebuild shattered economy, broken relations and built new alliances.
People's perceptions of what SPLM's vision is has got muddled so much that the common man and woman is left to wonder what was it that inspired people to go to war in the first place.
In th daily political conversations and debates which is going on through various media that the current political space could permit, four categories of people are observed displaying equally four broad behavior patterns:
- The Cynics or critics who are more reactive rather than proactive in addressing SPLM and its vision, missions and program; this is f all they have even any of these. They are fence sitters who monitor and evaluate every bit of event or trend and measure the outcomes on the basis of their perception which may not necessarily agree with the reality. Related to this is the reactive behavior is the adviser, the one who was victim or hurt in one way or the other and learned his lessons
- The cynics behavior contrast with the bully/aggressive category. This category leaders are proactive in their behavior ad actions; they play 'session leaders' in the debates that are raging today. Closely resonating with this kin of session leaders are the performers, the ones of are fond of showing off their knowledge etc.; the over-talkative
In th coming posting I will go on to present SPLM's vision as it is stated in its literature, then I will move on to discuss the divergent perceptions on it, its consequences and what options SPLM as a party a fast growing party particularly in the North can pursue.
But most important, reader, I would like you to share with me your comments and perspectives on this topic
Alesio
Sunday, November 11, 2007
The Big Equatorians-Dinka Debate Part 2
This is a continuation of my personal contribution in a genuine effort for South Sudanese to begin to seek a solution to how best citizen's security can best be protected throughout South Sudan, given the delicacy and fragility of the post-conflict situation in South Sudan.
The raging debate in the wake of the tragic murder of Police Officers on 4 November is still going on with. If it is any think to g by, it tells us that there if government fails to move faster enough enforce law, then those who believe that there is a conspiracy by certain quarters who now stand accused, namely the Dinkas elites perceived to be controlling the state apparatus in South Sudan, would be vindicated in their persistent arguments.
Past Practices
Memories of the past bad experiences refused to go away. Under Mr. Abel Alier, twice President of South Sudan's High Executive Council (1972-82), law enforcement agencies, the Police force in particular, was widely believed to have been used to safeguard the interest of Bor Dinka. The 1968 ethnic clashes in Juba and its environs was to a large extent seem as a compelling reason for the appointment of Ruben Mach, a Bor Dinka, as South Sudan Police Commissioner. Subsequent practices within the police including recruitments to officer corpse, training and retention, deployment patterns within the region and in particular departments within the police confirmed fears and concerns of many ethnic groups that the police was hijacked to advance particular interests of Bor Dinka and their allies. These interests range from social, economic, to political. Police force, in that sense was perceived as a lopsided institution not unresponsive to shared social norms, rules and values it was mandated to uphold and enforce.
General Joseph Lago had to dismiss Ruben Mach when he assume power in 1978, for "public interest". Mr. Abel Alier reinstated him when later, for "public interest"!
Two Models in One
More than two years since the signing of the CPA, one cannot certainly say that South Sudan's security sector is anywhere near effectiveness. The reasons are, GOSS is still struggling with at least two parallel models within its police, prisons, public security judiciary etc. departments, each developed separately over a long period of time: a) Government of Sudan Model b) SPLA Model. whether these models, parallel as they are, are compatible cannot be overemphasized. Each was established to deliver two different, inherently incompatible visions ingrained in the political systems that established each one of them:
NIF/NCP wanted to build an Islamic state and society in Sudan. Its understanding of the rule of law and that institutional framework that delivers it is informed by that vision. That explains why it purged several law enforcement officials including late Brigadier Michael Sebit whom GOSS reinstated barely two weeks ago before he was murdered by some JIU soldiers in his new office in Yambio.
SPLM/A established a semblance police force around 1994-1996 as part of its strategy not only to separate law enforcement from the army but to deliver its vision, norms, rules and values that are supposedly different from the "Old Sudan" model.
In other words, we still have a long way to go to thrash out what we really mean by the rule of law; what norms, rules, values that underpin the overriding vision for protection, dignified life, peace and stability.
We still have divergent sets of laws being practiced: statutory, customary and international laws. The question is whose law matter most?
Cognizance of differences and commonalities in those two sets of laws will help promote respect of diversity and will enrich development of our laws as we go on in addressing grievances that keep on occurring without redress. Our communities regard one another with utter contempt, fear/xenophobia etc. because we had not translated the New Sudan Model of rule of law into real tangible results. We have not fast tracked the process of genuine harmonization of what GOSS inherited from the two models.
What Needs to be done: Revitalization is the Word
GOSS shall begin to make rule of law as its top priority with a clear vision that inspires effective action plan for effective revitalization of rule of law. People need, after years of repression and subjugation, laws and law enforcement agencies that protect their rights and dignity; laws that promote peace and stability; laws that are equitable and fair...
People are looking toward effective agencies that respond to citizens', not rulers, perception of norms and morality. They want to see a corruption-free model of rule of law.
That is all
The raging debate in the wake of the tragic murder of Police Officers on 4 November is still going on with. If it is any think to g by, it tells us that there if government fails to move faster enough enforce law, then those who believe that there is a conspiracy by certain quarters who now stand accused, namely the Dinkas elites perceived to be controlling the state apparatus in South Sudan, would be vindicated in their persistent arguments.
Past Practices
Memories of the past bad experiences refused to go away. Under Mr. Abel Alier, twice President of South Sudan's High Executive Council (1972-82), law enforcement agencies, the Police force in particular, was widely believed to have been used to safeguard the interest of Bor Dinka. The 1968 ethnic clashes in Juba and its environs was to a large extent seem as a compelling reason for the appointment of Ruben Mach, a Bor Dinka, as South Sudan Police Commissioner. Subsequent practices within the police including recruitments to officer corpse, training and retention, deployment patterns within the region and in particular departments within the police confirmed fears and concerns of many ethnic groups that the police was hijacked to advance particular interests of Bor Dinka and their allies. These interests range from social, economic, to political. Police force, in that sense was perceived as a lopsided institution not unresponsive to shared social norms, rules and values it was mandated to uphold and enforce.
General Joseph Lago had to dismiss Ruben Mach when he assume power in 1978, for "public interest". Mr. Abel Alier reinstated him when later, for "public interest"!
Two Models in One
More than two years since the signing of the CPA, one cannot certainly say that South Sudan's security sector is anywhere near effectiveness. The reasons are, GOSS is still struggling with at least two parallel models within its police, prisons, public security judiciary etc. departments, each developed separately over a long period of time: a) Government of Sudan Model b) SPLA Model. whether these models, parallel as they are, are compatible cannot be overemphasized. Each was established to deliver two different, inherently incompatible visions ingrained in the political systems that established each one of them:
NIF/NCP wanted to build an Islamic state and society in Sudan. Its understanding of the rule of law and that institutional framework that delivers it is informed by that vision. That explains why it purged several law enforcement officials including late Brigadier Michael Sebit whom GOSS reinstated barely two weeks ago before he was murdered by some JIU soldiers in his new office in Yambio.
SPLM/A established a semblance police force around 1994-1996 as part of its strategy not only to separate law enforcement from the army but to deliver its vision, norms, rules and values that are supposedly different from the "Old Sudan" model.
In other words, we still have a long way to go to thrash out what we really mean by the rule of law; what norms, rules, values that underpin the overriding vision for protection, dignified life, peace and stability.
We still have divergent sets of laws being practiced: statutory, customary and international laws. The question is whose law matter most?
Cognizance of differences and commonalities in those two sets of laws will help promote respect of diversity and will enrich development of our laws as we go on in addressing grievances that keep on occurring without redress. Our communities regard one another with utter contempt, fear/xenophobia etc. because we had not translated the New Sudan Model of rule of law into real tangible results. We have not fast tracked the process of genuine harmonization of what GOSS inherited from the two models.
What Needs to be done: Revitalization is the Word
GOSS shall begin to make rule of law as its top priority with a clear vision that inspires effective action plan for effective revitalization of rule of law. People need, after years of repression and subjugation, laws and law enforcement agencies that protect their rights and dignity; laws that promote peace and stability; laws that are equitable and fair...
People are looking toward effective agencies that respond to citizens', not rulers, perception of norms and morality. They want to see a corruption-free model of rule of law.
That is all
Friday, November 2, 2007
The Big Debate-Dinka vs Equatorians
For the last few weeks, a disturbing debate kept on going between South Sudanese chat roots and internet website revealing that inter-ethnic or regional relations is going from bad to worst even as South Sudanese are confronted with with an impeding show down between NCP and SPLM. From the outset, the exchange are focus on issues around the rule of law i.e. robbery and general thuggery; incidences of rapes; land grabbing; forced marriages and child kidnapping, and a myriad of gender based violence. Also there are specific or general perceptions shared widely among the Equatorians that, the Dinka nationality are responsible for the failure-perceived or real- of GOSS to deliver on its promises to ensure effective rule of law, social services and a measure of recovery in many aspects of development.
Certainly Dinkas on the net could not be expected to take the demonization of their communities lightly as evident by their responds on websites and chat rooms not restricted to certain groups. Arguments written by Dinka writers follow lines of defense, disbeliefs and counter claims.
What is really the problem? what are the underlying causes of these raging accusations and why particularity at this critical point in time of transition processes from war and totalitarian rules to stability, peace and democratic systems?
Conspiracy theorists on both sides tend to have some body, a third party, to blame for this verbosity which can easily escalate to confrontation. Media, internet in particular can serve as a dangerous tool that can spread dangerous messages that are more likely to cause genocide. Rwandan genocide of 1994 is a 'good' example of how media can be used for destructive purposes.
In my view, the problem centers on our ability to manage or govern the processes of transition described above: The general population, irrespective of their differences in terms of ethnic, religious or political affiliations, had high expectations from CPA and its institutions top of which, GOSS. It is all about good governance. Just to differentiate it from good government, good governance is about how the state, civil society, and the private sector as stakeholder, deal with the overall environment that allows the citizens to realize their collective aspirations, vision/common purpose.
In other word, good governance encompasses all the South Sudanese as far as their collective identity is concerned.
Now, the grievances being expressed in the net will not cease as some people would wish. Why? It will is like to continue to take an unacceptable turn unless we boldly give it a bit more objective analysis, beyond the confrontational approaches now taking place. Through sobriety and conversation that entails keen listening to the 'other', thinking through issues before reacting, we are leaders of our communities can reach some consensus on the core problems now bedeviling us. We can more no to articulate the 4 's': Suggestions, strategies, solutions and services, to the satisfation of all.
If the core problem is that 3 years down the road, since January 9, 2005, we are yet to overcome challenges of transition, then what are the underlying causes?
It for now start with vision. Does there exist a collective vision for South Sudan? A vision that inspire all of us? Or there are contrasting, conflictive visions pulling the population apart?
A state whose purpose for exist is not clearly not articulated and shared is more likely disintegrate. Vision, articulated by the leaders and opinion shapers gives focus, Focus yields concentration and cohesion of efforts towards the realization of that collective purpose or vision. This what good governance policy makers and practitioners call effectiveness.The old adage says, where there is no vision, the people perish.
Vision guide plans for development, security etc. to the satisfaction of the people. Peoples satisfaction earns leaders, from village up to GOSS/central level respect and support. The lack of it, wrath.
My entry point, before cover other areas that show good governance, in its broader meaning and definition, was the existence of vision. Next in the list are:
Certainly Dinkas on the net could not be expected to take the demonization of their communities lightly as evident by their responds on websites and chat rooms not restricted to certain groups. Arguments written by Dinka writers follow lines of defense, disbeliefs and counter claims.
What is really the problem? what are the underlying causes of these raging accusations and why particularity at this critical point in time of transition processes from war and totalitarian rules to stability, peace and democratic systems?
Conspiracy theorists on both sides tend to have some body, a third party, to blame for this verbosity which can easily escalate to confrontation. Media, internet in particular can serve as a dangerous tool that can spread dangerous messages that are more likely to cause genocide. Rwandan genocide of 1994 is a 'good' example of how media can be used for destructive purposes.
In my view, the problem centers on our ability to manage or govern the processes of transition described above: The general population, irrespective of their differences in terms of ethnic, religious or political affiliations, had high expectations from CPA and its institutions top of which, GOSS. It is all about good governance. Just to differentiate it from good government, good governance is about how the state, civil society, and the private sector as stakeholder, deal with the overall environment that allows the citizens to realize their collective aspirations, vision/common purpose.
In other word, good governance encompasses all the South Sudanese as far as their collective identity is concerned.
Now, the grievances being expressed in the net will not cease as some people would wish. Why? It will is like to continue to take an unacceptable turn unless we boldly give it a bit more objective analysis, beyond the confrontational approaches now taking place. Through sobriety and conversation that entails keen listening to the 'other', thinking through issues before reacting, we are leaders of our communities can reach some consensus on the core problems now bedeviling us. We can more no to articulate the 4 's': Suggestions, strategies, solutions and services, to the satisfation of all.
If the core problem is that 3 years down the road, since January 9, 2005, we are yet to overcome challenges of transition, then what are the underlying causes?
It for now start with vision. Does there exist a collective vision for South Sudan? A vision that inspire all of us? Or there are contrasting, conflictive visions pulling the population apart?
A state whose purpose for exist is not clearly not articulated and shared is more likely disintegrate. Vision, articulated by the leaders and opinion shapers gives focus, Focus yields concentration and cohesion of efforts towards the realization of that collective purpose or vision. This what good governance policy makers and practitioners call effectiveness.The old adage says, where there is no vision, the people perish.
Vision guide plans for development, security etc. to the satisfaction of the people. Peoples satisfaction earns leaders, from village up to GOSS/central level respect and support. The lack of it, wrath.
My entry point, before cover other areas that show good governance, in its broader meaning and definition, was the existence of vision. Next in the list are:
- rule of law
- accountability
- parriticipation and citizen engagement
- equity
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)