BBC Africa Debate in Juba: aspects of salience and silence
By Dhieu Mathok Diing Wol
Home and Away conference’s hall in Juba city, the capital of the world’s newest country, South Sudan that ought to celebrate its first anniversary for the independence on July 9th, hosted the most renowned programme, “BBC Africa Debate” moderated by one of its journalist Mr. Joseph Murungi, last month the June 29th 2012.
The programme which was initially planned to bring 100 persons from different sectors of South Sudanese was over attended and around 150 participants were lastly allowed to enter the room. I was not among the invited guests. I thought of keeping myself away to avoid embarrassment though the programme deserves my attendance.
It seemed some quarters played a role in selecting participants, especially the members of the panel. A certain friend of mine was forced to leave the high table because the senior quest was not loved to share the platform with him. This attitude exactly confirmed my worries. The blame should go to the moderator Mr. Joseph Murungi and not any other person. The question many people asked after the talk-show was that why should the BBC want to promote dictatorship in South Sudan by allowing its programme to be influenced by individuals?
Anyway, it is up to the BBC administration to respond to or ignore this public concern here in Juba.
Coming back to the topic, as a citizen of South Sudan the article carries my take on the question posed by the programme. The question was clear and there was no room for maneuverability as time was limited. It goes “Has independence met expectation.” The answer could be “Yes” or “No” but to be up to a reasonable standard one must explain in a few seconds to justify the Yes answer or the No. Many participants got it right, however; the good number could not give satisfactory explanation either because of time factor or would like to hypocrites. Some took it as a chance to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the government and the ruling party, although the majority of participants in the room were SPLM members, one can realize that the most bitter interventions from the floor were from members of the governing party and the leader of minority took it as an opportunity to slam the SPLM and managed to win the hearts of many participants.
Of course, it is an obvious that the government officials that were given the opportunity to present their views on the topic came out in defence of the government to fight-back the accusations libeled on the government. Some insisted to point out the bright side of the government and at the same time admitted the mistakes committed by the government in the last 12 months.
This attitude itself shows a sense of responsibility from those guys who were placed at gunpoint by the BBC programme. A nation that does not admit its own shortcomings will never experience progress. Critics and opposite views are important components of good governance and must be encouraged. Government must accept failure to strategise for success. Leader should not lie to be 100% member of the ruling party, but he/she must tell the truth about the matter and outline how the party will address the problem. This is the style of good governance needed for building of a strong nationhood in South Sudan.
There are a lot to be registered in favour of this government. Obtaining a peaceful independence without a single drop of blood after many lives lost in the cause of freedom is a big achievement. People may agree with me and say yes that’s true but what next? Which, I personally conform to as a legitimate question and a point of divergence of the views by many participants. Some believe that although the secession of the country was attained, it seems the system is deviating away from its key principles of equality, justice and democracy which are part of its national emblem.
Maybe it is too early to our citizens to talk about prosperity as the country has less than one year to realize its developmental goals and prosperity. However, the principles of equality, justice and democracy, are only realized through an institutional framework upon which the operation of these principles should come through entrenching their basic elements into the constitution.
As the country is currently engaged in formulating the new constitution, it is important to see all these principles adequately addressed and included in the Supreme Law.
Many political analysts are in agreement that the interim constitution of 2005 was much better than the recent transitional constitution of 2011 as far as rights and freedoms, decentralization, distribution of powers between the different levels and the arms of government and issues of governance generally, are concerned. They believe (Political analysts), this could be the point of justification that the nation is not heading to the right direction.
Surely, this trend may affect the way how services are run to our citizens and subsequently there will not be prosperity.
We need to put a strong foundation for the nation building, otherwise things will move to wrong direction, and the people will never taste what their martyrs scarified their lives for which the independence alone was not an ultimate objective but a vehicle to take people to their final destiny, which is a prosperous South Sudan.
Dr. Dhieu Mathok is author of Politics of Ethnic Discrimination in Sudan: A Justification for the Secession of South Sudan and collaborate lecturer in the Center for Peace and Development Studies, University of Juba, South Sudan. He can be reached at [email protected].