No To Unity Under One Party In South Sudan

gordon-buay-with-prez-kiir.jpgBy Gordon Buay

Mr. John Garang’s apologists, to resist the call for multi-party system in the South during transitional period, are using the word unity these days.

Editor’s Note:

This article is in circulation. It concerns itself mainly with issues of future constitution and mode of governance for South Sudan. It suggests the possibility of a united armed forces for South and a multi-party system of governance. It raises pertinent issues that will need further discussion board under “Governance”.

Gordon Buay Reath – Calgary, Canada

Mr. John Garang’s apologists, to resist the call for multi-party system in the South during transitional period, are using the word unity these days.

According to Mr. Mansuk Amos in The Power of Unity, “it’s high time that some of our leaders especially those allied to the government should join the SPLA/M to work together for peace, equality, justice and development in Southern Sudan”.

The article raises many issues. However, I will only analyze the most pressing ones. The first issue raised is that all political groups in the South should join the SPLA to achieve peace.

The second issue is an assumption that underlies the first one that peace, equality, justice and development can be achieved in the South under the SPLA monopoly. I will tackle each one of these issues to demonstrate to my fellow Southerners that the argument of Mr. Garang’s apologists is similar to argument made by Adolf Hitler’s supporters in defense of totalitarianism. I am not one of those Southerners who can imbibe SPLA’s propaganda without analyzing it critically.

The first issue raised by Mr. Amos that all political groups in the South should join the SPLA in order to achieve peace defies formal logic, to say the least. It does not make sense that lasting peace in the South can be achieved because all political groups in the South join the SPLA.

If Mr. Amos is arguing that all armies in the South should unite and form South Sudan Army after South-South dialogue, his argument would make sense to a thinking person. But the defect of his argument arises from the phrase “all political groups”.

Why do all political groups need to join the SPLA in order to achieve peace? War occurs when two armed groups confront each other. If the issue of army were settled, why would the existence of other political groups cause war? It doesn’t follow logically that political diversity in the South will be an impediment to peace.

If the argument of Mr.Amos is that political diversity will give an advantage to Jellaba to exploit, the problem is that such an argument is defeated by the Naivasha Protocol itself which stipulates that South Sudan will have its own government with a constitution. Unlike Abel Alier local autonomy, Southern Sudan, with a constitution, which is respected practically, will be difficult to manipulate by Jellaba.

As we all know, a constitution for the government of the South will be written by constitutional conference approved by all political groups including South Sudan civil society in Diaspora.

There is no doubt that Southern Sudanese will opt for a constitution, which guarantees multi-party system. The SPLA position, which calls for NO-PARTY SYSTEM, is laid to rest by the existence of other political groups in the South.

For SPLA to impose one party system, it needs to defeat other groups militarily. When Yoweri Museveni drafted the Ugandan Constitution in 1987, his movement defeated all political forces in Uganda that was why article 169 of Ugandan Constitution states that Uganda is a no-party state.

SPLA did not defeat SSDF nor Southern opinion within the SPLA, which is calling for multi-party system.

Advertisements

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.