South Sudan rebel group proposes tripartite power-sharing for lasting peace

JUBA – South Sudan’s opposition United Democratic Revolutionary Movement (UDRM) has proposed a novel power-sharing system to address the country’s persistent political instability.

The group’s leader, Deng Vanang, outlined the plan in a proposal extended to Sudans Post on Monday, arguing that the current system of governance breeds regional and ethnic divisions in the world’s youngest country.

“The real problem facing South Sudanese generally is sheer ignorance of those in power on how the government works, coupled with stubborn unwillingness to serve the popular will against individual self-interest,” Vanang stated in the proposal.

The UDRM proposal calls for a “tripartism” system within a federal democratic parliamentary structure. This would involve the three major political parties, or coalitions of parties, sharing power during a transitional and post-transitional period.

Vanang cited Lebanon’s confessional system, which ended a long sectarian civil war, as a partial inspiration. However, he emphasized that the UDRM model avoids the inherent weaknesses of the Lebanese system.

“The proposed system doesn’t take the Lebanese confessionalism between sectarian parties on face value but avoids its inherent weaknesses that permanently benefit and disadvantage some sectarian parties,” Vanang explained.

The UDRM argues that tripartism offers several advantages. According to the movement, distributing power among three centers would prevent any one group from dominating the political landscape.

This diffusion of power, he said, would be further bolstered by each center serving as a check and balance on the others, fostering greater transparency and accountability within the government.

The UDRM proposal envisions broader inclusion by encouraging participation from various regions and ethnicities. A more representative government, argued the UDRM, would lead to a stronger and more independent judiciary, less susceptible to manipulation by any single political faction.

The proposal outlines specific roles for each center of power at both the national and state levels. For example, Vanang suggests that the party with the most seats in parliament would appoint the prime minister, while the runner-up would take the position of president of the bicameral assembly. A ceremonial president would be designated from the third-place party.

The UDRM proposal also calls for a “House of Nationalities” to represent all 64 South Sudanese tribes. Seats in this house would be allocated based on the county a party wins a majority in.

Vanang emphasizes the importance of stability by proposing a system where party leaders can only be removed through a vote of no confidence by their own party members. This aims to prevent unnecessary elections before the end of a term.

The UDRM proposal for state-funded political parties, both national and regional, aims to level the playing field and encourage grassroots participation.

UDRM is a rebel group that is a part of the South Sudan United National Alliance (SSUNA) led by General Stephen Buay Rolnyang, who is the head of the South Sudan People’s Movement (SSPM). It is one of the opposition groups negotiating for a deal with the government in the ongoing Nairobi peace talks.

The UDRM is a member of the South Sudan United National Alliance (SSUNA), led by General Stephen Buay Rolnyang, head of the South Sudan People’s Movement (SSPM) and it is currently one of the opposition groups negotiating a peace deal with the government in the ongoing Nairobi talks.

Vanang in a phone call with Sudans Post said the group has partially presented its proposal for a tripartite power-sharing system to the mediators and other parties involved in the Nairobi peace talks. He clarified that the proposal has not yet been formally discussed at the negotiating table.

“This UDRM’s position document was partly and not as the whole presented to Kenya High Level Mediation in Nairobi for possible public debate and consideration either in parts or in total,” he said.

“It is a political discourse reflective of South Sudan’s troubled background history and how better such bad and prolonged experience be amicably addressed once and for all,” the opposition leader added.

The proposal remains untested, and its impact on South Sudan’s political landscape is yet to be determined. How other political stakeholders will react and whether it will gain traction are key questions moving forward.