By Dr. Jacob K. Lupai
OPINION – South Sudan gained independence from Sudan in July 2011, making it the youngest country in the world. However, barely before two years of independence could elapse, in December 2013 political infighting within the ruling party, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) erupted into violence, dashing hopes for peace, security and development in the youngest country.
In August 2015 an agreement was reached on the resolution of the conflict in South Sudan. However, barely a year into the implementation of the agreement, a fight broke out between the principal signatories to the agreement.
Another agreement known as the revitalized agreement on the resolution of the conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS) was concluded and signed on the 12th September 2018. The R-ARCSS was scheduled to end after a total of forty-four months but has achieved very little. It has been extended twice, first for six months and then for another twenty-four months.
There is no guarantee that the R-ARCSS will achieve what is expected in terms of peace, security and development in the country.
There are ten states and two administrative areas in South Sudan. In theory the states and the administrative areas are semi-autonomous and self-governing. However, in practice the system of government is centralised. For example, the central government appoints and dismisses state governors and administrators of the administrative areas. Elected governors were dismissed by the central government under the perceived threat to national security.
A federal system of government is the sure way of sharing governing power between the central (national) and state governments. It is the division of power in a nation’s government, between a central authority and smaller regional or state governments. A federal government can therefore be defined as a system of government that divides the power between a larger central government and the state and local governments beneath it. In simplistic terms a federal system of government is a system designed to take power from the rich and give it to the poor.
In all, a federal system of government can have both political and economic benefits. It can be instrumental in promoting sustainable economic development. A federal system shares political power from the centre to the lower levels in a most likely beneficial way to a society. This is because a federal system brings the government closer to the people, enhances participation, promotes more effective community involvement and increases solidarity by empowering ordinary people to make decisions for the benefit of their communities.
South Sudan developed from being three provinces under the British colonial rule to ten states in what can be described as Arab dominated rule. This was to change under the Addis Ababa Agreement of 1972 when the three provinces became the Southern Region. For convenience, under the British colonial rule and Arab dominated rule, the three southern provinces were administered separately, each answerable to the central government in Khartoum in northern Sudan.
The Southern Region under the Addis Ababa agreement faced a number of challenges which eventually was divided into three regions, reflecting the previous three provinces. However, the division of the Southern Region int three regions did not go well in some quarters. Rebellion soon broke out again probably in retaliation to the division of the Southern Region into three regions. The rebellion was rewarded with a comprehensive peace agreement (CPA) which abolished the three regions and instead adopted the ten states established by the Arab dominated administration with a central government known as the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) as the three regions became Southern Region.
Since the peace agreements of August 2015 and of September 2018 for the resolution of the conflict in South Sudan, the people have not experienced any long-term peace and security. This has been at the expense of development for prosperity and stability. This is because the agreements have not addressed the core problem of the conflict in South Sudan. The agreements mostly dealt with power sharing which were more or less surrender agreements as little has been achieved.
Many South Sudanese are still internally displaced, many more are in protection of civilians’ sites and some have crossed international borders to become refuges because of the lack of security. Insecurity is rampant with warnings that violence is escalating all over South Sudan. According to the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) the recent fighting between SPLM/A-IO opposition forces and the Kitgwang and Agwelek factions has displaced thousands of people within Upper Nile, to Jonglei, Unity States and parts of Sudan. Over 14,000 have been displace and sought refuge at Malakal Protection of Civilians (POC) site.
South Sudan has a Ministry of Federal Affairs. However, it is not clear to what extent the Ministry is active and effective in promoting a federal system of government in South Sudan. There may be an intention to adopt a federal system of government but the lack of commitment may be the challenge. It may not be difficult to see why there is the lack of commitment to adopt a federal system of government.
I was one time in Pretoria in South Africa and met a prominent South Sudanese politician and leader in a hotel. As we discussed federalism my host proposed that there should be twenty one states in federal South Sudan. On my part I proposed three regions in the federation. My host looked at me and said what guarantee was there that Equatoria would not break away. I was bewildered as to why Equatoria was negatively perceived in a federal arrangement. The reason was not difficult to understand.
During the Southern Region government under the Addis Ababa Agreement of 1972 led by somebody who never physically participated in battles in the armed struggle, Equatorians were treated as if they did not actively participate and contribute to the liberation struggle that brought the Addis Ababa Agreement. In fact, the liberation struggle was led by none other than an Equatorian who was generous enough to offer the power to somebody who negotiated the Addis Ababa Agreement on behalf of the Arab dominated administration in Sudan.
In response Equatorians saw it as their right to call for “Kokora” of the Southern Region into three regions reflecting the three provinces under the British colonial rule. This was, however, vehemently opposed by some non-Equatorians who feared of losing power and as being uprooted from Equatoria. In federalism no one will be uprooted from anywhere.
For convenience, the word “Kokora” is a Karo word and simply means to “divide equally”. Karo is an ethnic group that includes the Bari, Kakwa, Kuku, Mundari, Nyangwara and the Pojulu. Partly due to the negative perception of “Kokora” others now say that if federalism is “Kokora” then federalism should not be accepted. The problem is that people do not want to admit that during the Southern Region government of Addis Ababa agreement mistakes were made.
I was one time privileged to chair a meeting of the community in London in the United kingdom with a visiting delegation of SPLA commanders from the frontline during the liberation war for freedom. The delegation included the sitting President of the Republic of South Sudan, Elijah Malok, Tahir Biong and Pagan Amum.
During remarks by the visiting SPLA commanders, on his part Elijah Malok said mistakes were made and people should move on. This was a great remark by a leader. However, there are some people who are still playing the blame game of blaming Equatorians for the collapse of the Addis Ababa agreement.
Elijah Malok’s remarks that mistakes were made show that mistakes were not only made by Equatorians but by other South Sudanese as well. People should take Elijah Malok’s remarks as important and positive to move on with confidence in exploring a federal system of government that may usher in a new era of peaceful co-existence and development for prosperity for all.
There is no way federalism is “Kokora and so South Sudanese will neither be divided along regional, state nor along ethnic lines. Federalism is an administrative arrangement to address the root causes of underdevelopment, poverty and the conflict. South Sudan is a rich country with vast natural resources in addition to billions of petro dollars as revenue. Unfortunately, all these are concentrated at the centre with the peripheries left as battle grounds with prevalence of abject poverty.
Federalism will address the root causes of the conflict in South Sudan. It will promote liberty in the form of non-domination of others, hence promotion of national unity. Federalism will therefore foster peace, security and development.
For a start, South Sudan can be a federation of three regions of Bahr el Ghazal, Equatoria and Upper Nile. Alternatively, South Sudan can be a federation of ten states. The two administrative areas of Pibor and Ruweng can either become states in their own right or join their previous respective states. If Pibor and Ruweng are treated as states, then South Sudan will be a federation of twelve states.
A federal South Sudan can be of three levels of government, federal (central), state and local (county) government. This is among others to address the problem of abject poverty. More than half of the population live in poverty. In addition, political conflict has caused massive displacement and about two thirds of the population are in need of aid. Food security is expected to deteriorate and with road infrastructure very poor, this makes it difficult to transport food supplies. With a federal system of government in place, South Sudan will be able to resolve some of the issues that are causing the conflict and food insecurity.
In accelerating development, the federal government will transfer payments or grants to lower level of governments. This suggests that the federal government can share its revenues with the lower levels. The federal government can provide incentive for the states to adopt federal rules and standards while at the same time increasing states’ operational revenues for development.
In the same way the states can provide incentive to the counties to implement programmes for the prosperity of the communities. The federal government can make transfer to the states either conditional or unconditional.
A conditional transfer to a state comes with a particular set of conditions. For example, should a state government be offered one of these transfers, it must agree to whatever spending instructions are given to it by the federal government in order to receive the transfer.
An unconditional transfer comes with no spending instructions. This means that the state is to spend the unconditional transfer on its priorities. In the same way the state government can make conditional and unconditional transfers to the local (county) government.
The conditional transfer is for the local government to help with development of rural infrastructures such as roads, hospitals and schools. In contrast, the unconditional transfer is for the priorities of the local government. It can be seen that in a federal system of government the lower levels have access to resources for development.
The three arms of government, the executive, judiciary and the legislature will all be found in the three levels of government in a federation. The federal government will be led by a president, the state government by a governor and the local government led by a commissioner.
The president and the governor are elected officials. In contrast the commissioner is appointed by the governor. Members of the federal and state legislatures will be elected members Councillors for the county council will also be elected members by the community. This can be seen as the practice of democracy.
A federal system of government with reference to South Sudan is an attempt to highlight the benefit of federalism in addressing the root causes of the conflict. However, federalism should not be mixed with “Kokora” which had created unnecessary ill feelings. “Kokora” is now history and as part of the history of South Sudan.
The adoption of federalism should be a genuine desire to address the root causes of the conflict in South Sudan. The alternative is for South Sudan to be in perpetual conflict which will be damaging to the promotion of national unity. Unfortunately, the alternative may likely lead South Sudan’s disintegration.
In conclusion, any peace agreement on resolution of the conflict in South Sudan should start with the implementation of a system of government that is federal in nature and enshrined in the constitution.
The author can be reached at jklupai@googlemail.com.
The views expressed in the ‘OPINIONS & ANALYSIS’ section of Sudans Post are solely the opinions of the writers. The veracity of any claims made are the responsibility of the author not this website. If you want to submit an opinion piece or an analysis please email us here.