Return of Former Political Detainees: the saga of hopes and disappointments

By Jok Madut Jok

There is no doubt that ordinary South Sudanese who suffer the consequences of the on-going political violence are desperate for peace and would make any compromises for the return of stability if given a chance. However, they are hostages of the politico-military elite and hardly have any say in the many political developments that shape the future of their country. Nothing can be more indicative of this morass than the recent hoopla about the return of the ex-political detainees from their self-exile in luxurious Windsor Hotel outside Nairobi, Kenya. It is evident that most people would swallow whatever grievances they may have and let many of these elites off the hook if there can be any assurances that these leaders will not simply revert to their old ways in which they prioritized their egos, pockets and political power. If their return could bring political unity, an end to the violence, a program of reform within the ruling SPLM, a vision for development, commitment to post-war reconstruction and repatriation of refugees, a genuine reconciliation project that goes beyond the usual lip service, reform of the security sector and nation-building project, I can bet that most South Sudanese would look away from the past misdeeds of this shameless crowd of politicians. Yes, it takes two to tango, or three in the case of South Sudan. If these gentlemen are honest about the search for a settlement, and having chosen to stay away from violence may be evidence they are, it will take comparable commitment from the government and Riek Machar’s rebellion.

Unfortunately, have we not been here before? For the past 18 months, from Addis Ababa peace talks to Arusha Intra-SPLM dialogue to numerous other efforts by world leaders to reconcile South Sudanese leaders, all that we have seen in response has been vindictiveness of the former political detainees against the president, trying to absolve themselves entirely from responsibility for the causes of the crisis the country is in. We have only seen intransigence of the SPLM in Opposition, blaming the crisis entirely on the President despite the failures and misconduct of the office of the former Vice President that are known to everyone in this country. Likewise on the part of the government we have also seen lack of compromise, wedging the country between talking peace while committing to war. Meanwhile, the furnace of violence continues to consume too many lives. Towns being overrun at the speed of lightening, only to be retaken just as fast, racing them to the ground, abusing civilian residents, and wasting resources in what everyone calls a “senseless war.”

So why should this ballyhoo about the return of exiles be trusted as the panacea for the country’s crisis? Is it not evident that, coming on the wings and protection of the South African and Kenyan governments, these people are being imposed on the country by the international community, and that these men are simply posturing for a return to public office on the back of our desperation for peace? Have South Sudanese become so politically invisible as to have the world community determine who should lead their country? What have they done, beyond the empty mantra of “we liberated this country” for them to imagine themselves as the saviors of this country? Who did not participate in the liberation? To what end did they liberate the country, to give themselves the right to a looting spree?

Their return has spurred a slew of debate on social media and Juba tea stalls, with some expressing cautious hope that these men may have become politically born-again and could be genuine in their quest, and others entirely dismissing any talk of peace and political value of the return. If all that the SPLM could do is to simply reinstate them and free up their ill-gotten properties that had been frozen in the wake of the violence in 2013, without such an action being accompanied by any accountability, handing the party powers over to them without any program of internal democracy and without plans to groom and make room for a younger leadership to shape the future, the party may well start digging its own grave, for it will die together with this aging leadership.

The author is a fellow of the Rift Valley Institute and a co-founder of the Sudan Institute, a policy research center based in Juba, South Sudan.