The best approach to reform
By Zechariah Manyok Biar
July 2, 2013 – In my recent article, “Proven wrong,” I suggested that the way South Sudan can improve by at least one point next year in the failed states grading is to target at least two issues that make it a failed state and improve on them. I did not offer the strategies that the Government could use to select these two issues. But Akol Liai Mager reminded me by giving his suggestions for selection under the article, making me think that I should go ahead and suggest the approach that I believe would be effective for both the selection and the improvement of the two indicators.
We should first remind ourselves on the indicators that were used for grading this year. They will be the same ones used next year, I assume. They include “a state whose central government is so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory; non provision of public services; widespread corruption and criminality; refugees and involuntary movement of populations; sharp economic decline.” They are the ones I would like our leaders to choose two indicators from and improve them.
If South Sudan leaders were to sit in a meeting and pick two out of the above indicators, it would take them some hours to agree on the selection strategy. If they were to do the elimination strategy, for example, then they could put things that they have no real control over aside and prioritize the easy-to-implement ones so that they could achieve them easily.
However, the indicators that are hard to achieve might be the ones which carry more points. Leaving them out would mean that South Sudan would stay in the same position next year even if leaders had improved on the two indicators they had selected. With these difficulties in our minds, how do we figure out the best approach for selection and improvement of the most important indicators? We need to first figure out what matters.
What matters, to me, is the highest good—which is doing no unjustifiable harm to any life. Justifiable harms are penalties that are defined by law in a country and are carried out legally after fair legal procedures. For our leaders to use this method successfully, they should develop a philosophy that emphasizes the valuing of individual’s life. We see this philosophy in many countries that rank highly in good governance. They value individual’s life and work hard to make sure that death could only take a person in either under legally defined sentences or under conditions that are beyond human control.
Countries in which leaders are committed to the philosophy of doing no unjustifiable harm to any life make citizens feel that their security is guaranteed by law. Death in the hands of criminals would still occur, but citizens would always trust government to bring criminals to book. Life becomes precious in these countries and almost everybody feels good to live in them. Each citizen becomes the keeper of his/her brother or sister.
In these countries, for example, when a building collapsed and bury at least one person under the rubbles hundreds of rescuers would risk their lives to rescue that one person. It could take days to rescue one person and those who are working to rescue such a person would not take any break for days. Citizens with smart ideas are called in to contribute ideas on the best way to rescue the person and the rescuers keep on working tirelessly. Each person does his or her rescue part willingly. All they care about is that a person is rescued to live. The top leader of such a country could even move to the site to encourage the rescuers. The media do their part to show the nation how they care for one another. Selfishness is reduced in such a country.
Not only do people who believe in the importance of individual’s life risk their lives to save a person, they make sure that no citizen is in any preventable danger. If our President hears, for example, that fifteen people on average are buried each day in Juba, he would commission researchers to find out why fifteen people die every day in Juba. He would also make sure that the media have the freedom they need to keep him informed through their reporting on what is taking place in many parts of the country, including pointing out weaker areas in his government.
The commissioned researchers could come back with the findings after a given time, showing that about three people die each day because they are killed by unknown gunmen; about four people are killed through reckless driving; and the remaining eight people die of natural death.
Being enlightened by the findings, the President could convene a cabinet meeting and ask the ministers to come up with strategies on how to reduce the death rate each day in Juba from fifteen people to at least three people. The Ministry of Interior would be asked to reduce the death of seven people who are killed each day by unknown gunmen and reckless driving to at least one death per a day within three months. The Ministry of Health would be asked to reduce the death of people who die of treatable diseases from eight to two people per a day within the same period. These strategies could then be carried out in all South Sudanese towns as they are done in Juba. The Office of President and the Ministry of Cabinet Affairs can be tasked with the monitoring and evaluation of these activities so that their implementations are carried out as planned.
Any leader whose institution failed to meet its targets at a specified time can be reminded by the monitoring and evaluation committees from the Office of President and the Ministry of Cabinet Affairs and asked to improve. Consistent underperformance could then lead to relieving of such a leader of his or her duties. Leaders whose institutions perform beyond expectations, on the other hand, can be publicly honored in different ways by the President.
If these strategies are implemented as planned and with consistency, we could find ourselves within less than a year improving on the indicators that include the ineffectiveness of government since the Government will now be practically in control over daily issues that affect citizens; non provision of public services since valuing of individual’s life would improve service delivery throughout the country; and widespread criminality because the Ministry of Interior will be going after criminals—either cattle raiders or armed gangs—in order to reduce the number of people killed each day by criminals.
The issues that will remain unsolved now would be widespread corruption; refugees and involuntary movement of populations; and sharp economic decline. However, sharp economic decline would be solved if the oil continues to flow like it is now, leaving unsolved only the issues of corruption and the refugee movement.
Corruption and the movement of refugees could take sometimes to solve. But if leaders take caring for people they lead as a priority, then corruption is going to reduce significantly.
All the above could give our citizens the feeling that the Government is taking care of them. Their level of satisfaction with the system will go up and they will start discouraging criminals among their communities. Rebellion would reduce, solving the displacement problem. South Sudan could now rank higher, making its leaders part of role models for good governance in the world.
These ideas sound like wild dreams here, but they are achievable. It is the political will to achieve them that matters.
Zechariah Manyok Biar can be reached at [email protected]