Let us avoid associating political issues with tribalism
A respond to Yai Joseph de Dut
By Lag Gatjal Riaka
March 5, 2007 — Beforehand, I would like to define self-determination as it is defined in the dictionary and then interpret it as to what it might means to many of us across the globe; particularly to Southern Sudanese. A fight for Self-determination has become common worldwide to people who are oppressed by regimes of dictatorship governments for instance, in Sudan. Self-determination has been interpreted as a means of becoming free from the oppress governments by breaking away rather than becoming part of that government and changing the Constitution. As a result, self-determination has been misinterpreted worldwide from its original meaning.
To refer all readers to the dictionary, self-determination is defined as “the decision by people of a nation as to what form of government they shall have, without references to the wishes of any other nation” (Dictionary). In this sense, self-determination does not mean a break away from the union rather than a need for recognition of every individual in the country to fully participate in the government, which Southern Sudanese have been missing in Sudan. On the other hand, it means a right for the people in the country without an account of theirs ethnic and religious backgrounds to decide what kind of government they need to have in their country through political process, for instance, a constitution right to all people, economic freedom, and establishment of democratic institutions.
Therefore, in this case, it seems that Dr. Lam Akol would qualified as one of the people who advocated for self-determination in Sudan by demanding constitutional changes, democracy, and economic freedom as Yai Joseph de Dut pointed out in his article “Why Dr. Lam Akol is Not Innocent”( Sudan Tribune 04/03/07). This seems that Yai Joseph is contradicting himself in that case. Since Dr. Lam Akol had been advocating for constitutional changes, democratic institutions, and economic freedoms in Sudan which Southern Sudanese have been missing in the fifty years of civil war, doesn’t that illustrate Dr. Lam Akol as one of the fathers of self-determination in Sudan? It was the constitution itself in Sudan that made us second citizens in Sudan because the constitution was promoting Islamic traditions and ignoring other ethnic groups in Sudan. It was the right time to call for self-determination to guarantee marginalized people in Sudan a full political participation in the country. Therefore, Southern Sudanese must look to the future of the Referendum as the only way for succession since we have been denied those rights of self-determination.
Conversely, you can not separate constitutional right, democracy, and economic freedom from self-determination as Dr. Lam Akol called for in the Fashoda Peace Agreement signed on April, 21st 1997. Now, the problem must not be who first called for self-determination in Sudan because it hasn’t been achieved yet. As we all know, sometimes the first become the last, therefore, I don’t think that the people of Southern Sudan will embraced those who first called for self-determination as some of Southern Sudanese argues in most of their conversations. It doesn’t matter who first called for self-determination in Sudan, but the ones that will lead Southerners to full permanent self-determination whether we remain part of Sudan and fully recognize, or Southern Sudan become an independent state are the ones that will be well-known to Southern Sudanese in history. At this movement, we should not be causing tension between tribes because of this minor issue, if in fact Dr. Lam is the valuable suspect in this case, let the investigation be conducted first and we should leave it to the government of Southern Sudan. We should not use terms that refers to tribes because the whole tribe can not be hold accountable for one person’s guilt. In fact, tribalism doesn’t exist until we bring it up; we should just be working toward common good for all Southern Sudanese. If Dr. Lam Akol is found guilty under this circumstance, it must be treated as a political issue and not tribal matter.
There is a problem with us as Southerners and that is why there is a fear whether we will be able to live on our own. In an event of becoming a state, every time a political leader is accused of corruption or undermining the Federal Government, people are more likely to associate it as a tribal matter instead of looking at it in the political view. That is one of the problems we will be facings if Southern Sudan become an independent state. These are some of things we should pay attention too as Southerners. Let us avoid associating political issues with tribalism. Tribalism doesn’t exist until we call for it, until we write about it, and until we bring others into it. As of the movement, we should live it to the government of Southern Sudan to investigate all charges brought against Dr. Lam Akol. Dr. Lam should remain an innocent man until prove guilty because that is what our interim-constitution says.
* The author is based in Moorhead, Minnesota, U.S.A. He can be reached at [email protected]