Is The GOSS Superficial Knowledge Or Another Garang Vs Gai Tut Ideologies?
Well, some of the GoSS supporters may say something different or hate you to the muddy ground, if you happen to say something they do not like. South Sudan is land where everyone can survive, if indeed it had not been spoilt by hate-and-run ideologies.
21 October 2009
By Gatluke Chuol Reat
There is no doubt that my friends from SPLM can agree with me that the leaderships within South Sudan are bent on sciolism. They talk peace (unity) and war at the same time. They confuse all those innocent people by not directing them for what to do since the election and referendum are approaching. The leadership of SPLM seems to have no desire to get away from chronic hate-and-run politics while the civilians are starving to the death every single day in South Sudan.
Let us go through these points by point;
First, the GoSS these days can be called sciolism for many reasons. It was not that long ago when the CPA was signed because of peace, unity and many issues that are facing South Sudan in particular. Now the dilemma is on where the CPA has turned out to be an opportunity for the few individuals in the South to make profits.
Next to that are the propaganda to scare the South Sudanese over peace by using whoever happens to disagree with them as an enemy of the peace and CPA. The question may be that, should people rely on this cheap politic? Of course, there are those who have no access to the outside world. And the chronically ill-minded who are just die-hard for the name, the SPLM without knowing the future and what they are supporting for. They felt short of analysing the ideology of SPLM, if they actually have in these days.
Secondly is the Garang versus Gai Tut ideology: the situation that led Gai Tut and Dr John Garang to disagree was that whether the idea of New Sudan and complete South Sudanese independence should lead the movement. In fact, where Garang’s groups were favoured on new Sudan while Gai Tut’s groups argued that since the struggles were largely from the South, the movement should focus and liberate only the South from the North. Then, the dissolution was on the table and only order could resolve the situation leading to the killing of Samuel Gai Tut after a disagreement between him and Dr John Garang de Mabior in 1984.
Is the Garang Vs Gai Tut scenario about to repeat itself?
Though, some may argue that it is not, especially the die-hard SPLM supporters, others may say that chances are there where many can proof their points of view that Yes, the history is about to repeat itself. Why? Because the Government of Southern Sudan has been viewed by many as that where the GoSS officials do not know what they are doing. Now the focus in the South is whether there will be an election or not. Some even went further by questioning the referendum status; whether there will be a referendum or not. It might be fair to suggest that some will fight to death again if their vision happens to be in sync. Others may dance for their hard-earned win over the forgotten millions of lives that have been lost during the struggle, but not for those who already died for it. Surprisingly, SPLM seems to be leaning towards dilemma rather than fulfilling the dreams. It appears that they chose opportunities over freedom that many people have fought for. Is this because of the repetition of history of disagreements? Or is it just a matter of sciolism?
Wasn’t Kirr Mayardit the one who said he is working hard to make unity attractive? And again was he not the one who invited all those who hated South Sudanese to muddy ground for so many years to Juba? Again some are working on referendum laws, strategies, how to divide populations and many other issues.
According to a report in a local Sudanese website, “the National Congress Party (NCP) and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) agreed on Thursday after 10 months of heated negotiations to adopt a uniform requirement of 51 percent simple majority votes to declare South Sudan an independent country or confirm unity in the upcoming January 2011 referendum”. Whatever this means leaves so many wondering. Well, the confusion on and the war of words is on the table too, we all already know that. The bad news is that these kinds of confusion came from top to the bottom, even worse the bottom are defending the top to the hilt; not even considering the reality show or admit the worse scenario by their bosses. Well, too bad to defend your bosses who are the destroyers, but even worse the followers will follow their head chiefs status quo.
Should there be any solution?
Of course, there are chances still that can lead us to resolve this situation.
First, to eliminate marginalization and blindness where many people are being forced to believe what does not even exist.
Secondly, to let the freedom prevail, where everyone can have a say openly even during discussions of the matters of ways forward by letting the public know about which agenda are on the table and what way those agenda have to be discussed.
It means to create an atmosphere by the government where all citizens have to be proud of their country, rather than thinking that they have been left out by the government. In which, most of whom have to create a bad habit toward their colleagues and the government within South Sudanese societies.
Thirdly, to change the coexisted SPLA army force’s name to Southern Sudanese Armed Force or just give them a name as other countries do according to division, in order to reduce hatred within the SPLA army force.
Above all, the government has to be clear to its citizens, most importantly working towards peace by reconciliation and leading the way.