SPLM PB vs. grassroots citizens

By David Mabior Atem de Kuir

February 18, 2010 — “The SPLM Political Bureau as a higher organ of the people party has
disrespected the grassroots citizens as political commodities. The SPLM
has an obligation as a party that fought to free marginalized
communities by bringing human equality and dignity in Sudan regardless
of race, religion, colour, gender, as well as freedom of expression,
freedom of speech and right to vote as it’s the case of upcoming
election” writes David Mabior Atem de Kuir.

The SPLM Political Bureau has obstructed the selection process for the
upcoming election; some of candidates have met the legitimacy of
democratic process, some have not. Individuals that were chosen by the
grassroots voters during pre-election were replaced by the SPLM
Political Bureau in Juba without consultation with grassroots citizens
as political commodities. The SPLM Political Bureau decisions of
selecting loyalists and long-term savers have become detrimental in some
parts of semi-autonomous regions. What is the point of having a
democratic process if individual names that were not on the lists have
appeared while the ones those that were on list disappeared? In some
areas, there was no collaboration between the Political Bureau’s
decision – made by the 27 persons- and grassroots citizens at each level
of the government, including: payams, counties, states and country at
large. The Political Bureau has neglected citizens’ right to choose
by appeasing their personal loyalists rather than accommodating the best
interests of citizens. Candidates are elected by the grassroots people
at different constituencies to represent them at each level of the
government. In my view, they are ‘political commodities’ similar to
‘market commodities’. Their choices are more valuable in this
democratic arena. Without grassroots on the ground, the SPLM as a
people party cannot operate but local communities can function without
the SPLM. Consider the example of the Islamic government in old Sudan
where local people from marginalized communities were mistreated and
denied social services intentionally. One could not imagine how many
atrocities were committed against local communities and they survived.

First of all, the SPLM Political Bureau has obstructed the selection
process in following ways: first, The SPLM Political Bureau should have
done a screening by short listing all the candidates contesting in each
post and then sent them to their respective constituencies. This step
would have allowed the SPLM Political Bureau to make sure he/she has the
criteria and then leave it open for the citizens to decide which
candidate they want to represent them and in what level of the
government. By doing so, citizens would have the opportunity to
experience the democratic process. This election is the first
multiparty election as well as it would be a first time for majority of
Southern Sudanese to cast their votes. Secondly, Southern Sudan
Electoral College should have received the names of candidates from Juba
Office then sent them to different constituencies; it would have avoided
misunderstanding between some candidates that their names were screened
out and the Electoral College officials. Thirdly, the SPLM Political
Bureau would have only to congratulate individual candidates who made it
on the SPLM tickets by winning the interests of citizens at grassroots,
which will allow the SPLM to function as a democratic entity to bring
institutional changes in Sudan as a whole. Keeping that order would
also propel the SPLM to win more seats at different levels of the
governments. This would have credited the system rather than
discredited the system as the Secretary General has admitted that: “On
Tuesday, February 9, during a press interview with journalists, in the
regional capital of Juba openly admitted existence of irregularities in
the selection of candidates for various positions”.

Not utilizing the above three steps have caused two distinctive
challenges: First, it has discredited the people party system that the
SPLM portray. The Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS) appears incapable
of making a healthy decision on behalf its citizens. Secondly, it has
created a concept of independent candidates within the same party that
may put the SPLM Party on a weakened position because voters will be
split up into so many selected vs. independents candidates. Equally
serious, the SPLM Political Bureau should know that these Independent
Candidate groups are motivated by what I have termed ‘political
commodities’ because they are in touch with grassroots citizens. They
clearly indicate that they do not want to let their supporters down
-that is a promise! These grassroots voters are the engine of the
democratic process anywhere of the world, so neglecting their choice is
a political risk, miscalculated by the SPLM Political Bureau,
unknowingly. If the system was not done in reverse, 340 independent
candidates across Southern Sudan should not have run independently. As
well, they are calling on the Secretary General to resign from the SPLM
higher post because of that mess! Consider this, if they were to screen
through pre-election done at the grassroots level these independent
candidates would have been left with no option other than respecting
political commodities decisions because nobody else they expect to vote
them in any constituencies they would want to represent.

In short, the SPLM/SPLA has taken up arms against an oppressive regime
in the name of marginalized communities. With that, the SPLM Political
Bureau should respect that protocol by refraining from the mass not to
interfere with the selection process in order to educate its people and
Islamic government about democratic values. However, advancing such
transparency, open process and a fair pre-election process will
translate into a smooth election in April as well as continuity of that
accountability will further the ends of the referendum in 2011. The
SPLM political Bureau should know that SPLM/SPLA is an engine of changes
in Sudan: West, East, South, North and Central and in turn will allow
for changes on a larger scale: socially, economically, culturally and
politically. The case in point is that, in the past there was no
Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) without sacrificing of two millions
lives, there was no Government of National Unity (GNU) without SPLM to
negotiate and there was no sharing of natural resources without people
party to advance that course. I believe that, the SPLM is vanguard for
all marginalized communities without looking at different identities,
geographical location, religion and race. Being a vanguard means taking
a lead by addressing various issues at different levels, of government,
be visible at grassroots levels and be protective of political
commodities as well as respecting their choices as it was the case of
last two months pre-election process in the region of semi-autonomous
South Sudan.

*David Mabior Atem de Kuir, Canada, is a Masters candidate in Public
Policy and Public Administration Program, Specializing in Strategic
Planning and Management at the University of Manitoba with proposed
Thesis on Immigration Policy. He can be reached at: E-Mail:
[email protected]