Impasse of finding fitting capital for South Sudan
By Yai Joseph de Dut*
April 27, 2007 — The velocity of urbanization in Southern Sudan has been characterized as slower or hesitant in the most recent interregnal intervals, 1982 to 2005, than in the previous periods; 1947 to 1972 and all way to the mid of Nineteenth Century. Most of the changes were minimal in the rural-urban equilibrium from 1972 to 1982 appears due to the augmentation of towns into the urban taxonomy relatively than to a redistribution of populace into the previous urban settlements. A sizeable number of towns in Southern Sudan previously known as “Capital for the Provinces” illustrate incomparable growth following Addis Ababa Peace Accord, but there seems to be no clear relationship between a city’s size and its subsequent growth. The rural areas on the fringes of the largest cities of the South do show considerable rapid growth, especially the periphery of the capital cities such Wau, Juba etc……. it appears that neither the typical replica of urbanization based upon Western urban development of cities nor the over-urbanization hypothesis explain the limited urbanization process in modern Southern Sudan. But much could be attributed to bad planning of urban centres/cities or political marginalization that has been paralyzing the development of urban centres in the South.
None of us has all the answers to this multifaceted list of challenges that occurred before Addis Ababa Peace Agreement on 2nd of March 1972 and later accompanied by the revolt of Sudan People’s Liberation Army/Movement, SPLA/M in May 1983 envisaged in “New Sudan Programme” as a legitimate alternative to fight-off marginalization policy practiced in the centre (Khartoum-based juntas). But I would like to share with you what I believe are some of the key strategic interventions and experience required and learned from quite a few developing countries which have gone through similar situation of repositioning of their hereditary national capitals over the past decades. Assured common issues can be revealed to have contributed to these decisions: the peripheral location of the capital; its regal connotations; and the need to spread regional development, allay regional or ethnic jealousies, and provide a focus for national pride. An example of those transferals; Nigerian’s capital from Lagos to Abuja, South African’s from Jonesburg to Pretoria but Malawi’s capital shows how these issues pretentious the decision to move from Zomba to Lilongwe. The development of Lilongwe as the new capital is facing many problems in the fields of finance, planning, population growth, service and housing provision, and employment. Moreover, Lilongwe’s limited ability to provide a real counter-attraction to the major urban centre of Blantyre has been partly due to a lack of strong government commitment to enforcing appropriate policies – Eastern & Central Africa’s Group- Africa Economic Report 2000.
In approaching this issue of SPLM led-government leftover in search for the fitting Southern Sudan’s capital, the initial key question to consider is the feasibility of when this search begun developing? by using political indicators as tools for findings. There are various issues underlying and contributed into the construction of political elements and their implementation; a number of which have emerged right from the Turkish rule (1821 -1886) then all the way to the Anglo-Egyptian rule from 1899 – 1955 AD. The territorial experience of Southern Sudan’s social and political models nationally and locally never witnessed consensual conformity on nationwide capital. Because, previous Southern Sudan provinces were administered independently, no centralized systems of authority/governance except in 1972 with the formation of High Executive Council (HEC) rule.
Over the time one of the earliest problems that Southern Sudanese people faced during the rule of High Executive Council and reined the process of rebuilding united South Sudan nation which is stressed in re-division call implemented through Southern Sudanese jobseekers elites and locally termed as “Kokora era” manufactured by Khartoum based-regime one SOUTH happened to be divided into (3) regions Equatoria, Bahr Al Ghazal and Upper Nile. This notion of pluralism in the Southern administration has increased sense of regionalism identification rather than collective and united Southern Sudan. It has been argued that in the signing of Addis Ababa Peace Accord Juba was in fact the most urban centre in the South in proportion and comparison to its sister-towns populated (Wau, Aweil, Malakal, Bor, Nasir, Kopeta, Torit etc…). The choice of Juba to be the seat of HEC and national capital for the South in 1972 was unconditionally agreed to bring all Southern Sudanese rainbows into one place with the little and limited services at that time, however, the facilities became major problems that often brought misunderstanding between the authorities and local public in Juba. Moreover, the records show that since 1982 – up to date there is little work done in reference to the selection of national capital. It is important to put in record and to share equally ongoing discussions over the national capital for the South started before the signing of Navaisha Six Protocols and again during South-South Dialogue sessions in Karen April 2005. The vast majority of the SPLM/A do not have counter-opinion to what city will be the capital of the GOSS? Rumbek town was serving the movement as a transition capital with its inadequate services. Whereas the Humanitarians NGOs, UN systems, SPLM-CANs and SPLM Secretariats seat exist, in a short time Rumbek’s population has doubled in size during that period; infrastructural development has proceeded far more at a snail’s pace. The result has been an ever-widening gap between the SPLM Secretariats Headquarters and local populations’ acceptance for their town to become new national capital, also the need for supply of essential services. This gap has generated the dialogue between supporters of Rumbek as their capital town and others to search for new place to be a capital, as a result “Rumchiel or Rumkiel” was proposed by our late hero Dr John Garang de Mabior.
In my view, to avoid ambiguity of SPLM Secretariats capital city proposal before the signing of Sudan Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) on January 2005 and misconception of terms in regard to GOSS – Vice President and Minister for Housing, Urban Planning and Public Utilities Dr Riek Machar’s press conference in March 2007-Juba, it is imperative a vivid and clear explanation of GOSS predicament to resolve and settling into interim national capital city. The press release was widely received by the Southerners with mixed feelings; some were favouring or opposing the decision to move GOSS Headquarters from ‘old Juba-Amaraat area’ to the island of Gondokoro. Giving the fact that expansion of urban sprawl is associated with a rapidly deteriorating quality of life in neighborhood villages, increased in crimes rate, and modernization with particularly adverse impacts on the poor-rural settlers’ access to the existing facilities in town and negative impacts resulted from urban expansion on the expense of rural-farms.
Leftover impasse for the SPLM-GOSS search for suitable national capital city can be reiterated as far as before the formation of GOSS back to era of SPLM’s proposal to establish new capital in Rumchiel. Shall we built a new capital was one of Dr. John Garang dreams? Knowingly that old towns like Juba, Malakal and Wau their services are mostly affected and that include; housing, water supply systems, sewerage, and solid waste, transport and urban crimes. In addition to access to infrastructure has been dependent on income levels rather than population density, with higher standards of provision. However when Dr. Riek Machar in his capacity as V/P and Minister for Housing and Lands declared GOSS-Headquarters move to Gondokoro atoll, we all caught up with racial segregation and it was promoted by the Gondokoro intellectuals groups and this resulted essentially in ethnic tripartite of the South; Bari, Mondari and other small tribes overwhelmingly inhabiting the surroundings of Juba zones. These tribes regarded none settlers as temporary sojourners in Juba and thus made little provision for their accommodation. It was thought that the provision of extensive public housing would encourage an excessive influx of other citizens from old Upper Nile and Bahr Al-Ghazal region into Juba, resulting in increasing criminal activities and disease.
In my view to cut this long debate short; this issue of national capital should be resolved through Southern Sudan Legislative Assembly (SSLA) which is the voice of suffering Southern Sudanese masses in a dignified silence and the amendment of our heritage history must be in reference to Southern Sudan Interim Constitution. The SSLA is capable of doing so, and the best lesson learned is Southern Sudan national flag adopted from SPLM/A’s one. Most importantly is that GOSS must embark on feasibility studies in relation to:
Firstly; geomorphology and land-space availability to accommodate our national capital whether to be Rumciel or Gondokoro in long runs impacts such as sustainability to construct viable sewerage systems and water supply without interference to pollute underground water and the Nile water, in other words pollution control and environmental management.
Secondly; yet, facilitate a discussion of how more egalitarian participation in choosing our national capital can be increased through evidence-based examples of good practice i.e. research carried out on initiatives – planned or spontaneous – that led to increased rights, freedoms and opportunities for social harmony and advocacy for coexistence regardless of homestead origins.
Thirdly; Financial and resource commitments as we are prioritizing our priorities to construct new national capital without perfidious to other services, bearing in mind that what GOSS spends all come from oil revenues.
Fourthly; GOSS MUST construct creditable constructors with creditable profile unlike Ugandan consultancy firm mentioned in Dr. Riek Machar press conference.
Fifthly; If the objective of choosing neutral land for the capital is to avoid a kind of confrontational political maneuvers, then it has to be differentiated from favourism intentions, which also has its political downfalls value, but develops the notion of respect as a moral prerequisite for justice and social harmony, in fact the proposed capital must reflect genuine acceptance of the masses across the board of political and social rainbows of Southern Sudan but not political propaganda to gain political support by all standards.
It will only be possible to assess the efficacy of reverberation national capital for the South or GOSS-Headquarters as a means for promoting more open intercultural, political, economic and social aspirations if the formal dialogue is transformed and integrated into constitutional guidance. There is a significant conflict between the way in which diversity is represented in policy making in the South or GOSS and the way in which it is perceived and experienced at the communities’ level. Policy making tends to frame diversity as celebratory but not mandatory in a sense of exclusivity-top-down policy. In contrast, there are many examples of the conflictual nature of diversity in society, such as that row highlighted by the Gondokoro intellectuals on the realities faced and presented by Dr Riek Machar proposal in light of the GOSS move to Gondokoro agenda. Comrades we must sing in one tune. I quote late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous speech August 28th, 1968 (I Have A Dream; I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed). That one day Southern Sudan communities will live a dignified life and conflict-free society out of the cheap political maneuvers.
*The author, who is a SPLM member based in Southern Sudan, played an important role in the initiation of the SPLM Northern sector. He can be reached at [email protected]