Lam Akol for South Sudan presidency

Lam Akol for South Sudan presidency

By Jacob K. Lupai

January 22, 2010 — These days the hot topic in the news is nomination of candidates for the various electable positions in the April 2010 elections in Sudan. Like anybody else I followed issues of relevance to the April elections through the media. When I saw a warning by Dr Lam Akol Ajawin of Sudan People’s Liberation Movement for Democratic Change (SPLM-DC) against South Sudan independence, I thought that might have touched a raw nerve. I decided also to express my views as Dr Lam had the right to exercise his freedom of speech.

Dr Lam Akol Ajawin has already been nominated by his party SPLM-DC and confirmed by the alliance of Southern Sudan political parties to run for the presidency of the government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) in the April 2010 elections. The alliance consists of eight political parties namely Sudan African National Union (SANU), United Democratic Salvation Front (UDSF), United Democratic Party, SPLM-DC, Sudan National Labour Party, Union of Sudan African Parties (USAP 2), South Sudan Democratic Forum and South Sudan Democratic Front. It is not clear how the political parties in the alliance differ in their political orientation and manifestos. Some appear as though they are fringe parties while others seem to have never been prominent in the South. The alliance may have been strategically formed to boost the strength of SPLM-DC in the South against its rival Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM).

When the alliance of Southern Sudan political parties met in Khartoum on 13 January 2010 to nominate a presidential candidate for the GOSS, it was the SPLM-DC that presented its candidate and who else other than Dr Lam Akol Ajawin. As it was a tactical alliance some of the parties never presented their candidates for the presidency of the GOSS. Probably the alliance might have fragmented if Dr Lam Akol Ajawin did not get his way to become the alliance’s candidate. He is well known for his ambition to be always at the helm. It is most likely that the parties formed the alliance because of the blame game played out by SPLM-DC as a strategy to unseat SPLM as the dominant party in government in the South. In return an SPLM-DC win in the South in the April election may likely see the alliance rewarded with a number of portfolios in government.

Dr Lam Akol Ajawin blame game is not something new. In 1991 when he engineered a coup against Dr John Garang de Mabior to take over the SPLM he did it the same way of apportioning blame as it is now the case. When he failed in his treacherous scheme Dr Lam Akol Ajawin ended up with the National Congress Party (NCP) in Khartoum. As a ship with no anchor Dr Lam Akol Ajawin was on the move again to rejoin the SPLM under Dr John Garang de Mabior who he had desperately wanted to overthrow. When a comprehensive peace agreement was reached between the SPLM and the NCP in January 2005 and after the untimely death of Dr John Garang de Mabior in a helicopter cash, Dr Lam Akol Ajawin was appointed as minister of foreign affairs in the government of national unity (GONU) on SPLM ticket. With his ways of doing things Dr Lam Akol Ajawin was again seen as working independent of SPLM policy. He was eventually relieved of his membership of SPLM. Probably outrage Dr Lam Akol Ajawin found time to plot on how best to get back at SPLM.
In White Nile State in the North a meeting of South Sudanese political leaders, political activists and intellectuals took place in Kenana Sugar Industrial Complex between the 1st and 3rd April 2009. Prominent southern leaders and politicians among the delegates to the meeting were Dr Lam Akol Ajawin and Mr Bona Malwal. The meeting was chaired by Gissimalla Abdallah Rassas a former president of the high executive council for southern region in the Addis Ababa agreement. According to the report of the meeting the delegates “took a national unity stand an slammed the ruling party of Southern Sudan, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) for governance failures over the last four years”. It was not clear whether the national unity stand was taken for unity of Sudan or Southern Sudan. However, when Dr Lam Akol Ajawin issued a warning against Southern Sudan independence, claiming it would be suicide, it was then clear that indeed the national unity stand taken was for unity of Sudan. The warning against Southern Sudan independence is a typical NCP language of scaremongering.

The Southern Sudan political parties in the alliance must be very uncomfortable indeed with Dr Lam Akol Ajawin’s rejection of independence to Southern Sudan on the fear that GOSS is weak at the moment. A political party such as South Sudan Democratic Forum whose chairman in a conference in Khartoum was quoted as saying, “If today we were asked what we would advise the people, if it was referendum day, I would just say vote for independence”, must be uncomfortable in the alliance with SPLM-DC. United Democratic Front or Party is another pro-independence southern party in the alliance. Also United Democratic Salvation Front (UDSF) is a southern pro-independence political party. It was originally the South Sudan Independence Movement (SSIM). This may suggest that the alliance of Southern Sudan political parties is a sham. It is only a cover to promote SPLM-DC bid for the presidency of GOSS.

Using the North as the platform to launch a programme that will be implemented in the South looks like SPLM-DC wants to convince the NCP for support. What makes it difficult for SPLM-DC to face and address the people in the South in order to provide answers to questions that may be raised? Kenana in the North was chosen to express fierce criticism of SPLM and GOSS. The delegates in the meeting in Kenana seem to have been people of the same mind, their common national unity stand and the vehement condemnation of SPLM. What was expressed in Kenana was what the NC wanted to hear. It was also most likely that the NCP had fore knowledge of the meeting in Kenana. The NCP must have generously contributed to the cost of the meeting. This as possible given the shared language in the meeting with the NCP.

The choice of the alliance of Dr Lam Akol Ajawin as the candidate for the presidency of GOSS is interesting. There are two powerful positions to contest in the April elections. The presidency of the government of national unity (GONU) and the presidency of GOSS. It was not clear why it was not possible for SPLM-DC to present Dr Lam Akol Ajawin for the presidency of GONU. One possible explanation is that SPLM-DC and NCP are one and the same. The SPLM-DC warning against independence to the South and its fierce criticism of SPLM is reflective of the NCP stand against independence to the South. NCP is also critical of SPLM as does SPLM-DC. SPLM-DC therefore couldn’t stand against NCP for the presidency of GONU. The only powerful position left for SPLM-DC to contest is the presidency of GOSS. The gamble here is for NCP to be the lead party in GONU in the North and SPLM-DC the lead party in GOSS in the South. The implication is clear. The NCP major goal of maintaining the unity of Sudan will be easily achieved without a shot being fired.

With NCP dominating in the North and SPLM-DC in the South, SPLM may only have one choice. SPLM may either go to war or respect the law that legitimises the result of the elections and accept to be at the mercy of the whims of NCP and SPLM-DC. One way to avoid this scenario is for the South to understand that SPLM-DC is NCP in disguise to deny independence to the people of the South. There is no need to harass or intimidate SPLM-DC. We must learn to live in democracy. It is through the ballot box that SPLM-DC can be made to pack and return to where it came from. No southern political party has come out openly to oppose independence to the South. SANU may be inclined to unity without learning a lesson from the assassination of its leader, William Deng Nhial. Dr Lam Akol Ajawin will be a lucky man if he escapes a humiliating defeat at the polls in the April elections. Surely he should be aware of the strong feelings in the South against unity between the North and the South which has endured for half a century a life of misery. The South had paid much before the CPA. What is there not to pay any price for independence which is round the corner in the last lap? The 1955-1972 and 1983-2005 wars were very expensive but the South is not yet independent.

The SPLM should now concentrate on effective campaigning. It needs to capture most of the votes both in the North and the South. The aim is to secure both presidencies, in the North and in the South. The North needs to be convinced that with SPLM in the driving seat in the North and in the South people will be safer from regional instability. Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile will not be explosive with SPLM administration in the North even if the South goes separate ways. The two governments, SPLM GONU and SPLM GOSS will create conducive conditions for a peaceful co-existence between the North and the South. This will be something that Sudan needs at this moment in time in its history of troubles. An NCP GONU and SPLM-DC (which is NCP in disguise) GOSS will be another disaster for Sudan because the South and SPLM will not throw up arms in surrender. However, SPLM-DC will not win in the South.

Dr Lam Akol Ajawin fierce criticism of GOSS is not without basis. Even Salva Kiir Mayardit is openly critical of his GOSS and is on record urging ministries and civil servants to perform to accepted standards. He admits failures, high level of corruption in government and the poor delivery of services as peace dividends. Salva Kiir Mayardit has not covered up weaknesses in GOSS. He deserves praise for being honest in identifying and admitting the problem. We should know that a problem identified is half solved. Not identifying or admitting a problem exists is already a problem in itself. It would be difficult to solve a problem that was not identified. Dr Lam Akol Ajawin is right to a point. However, he has not identified a new problem that people did not hear or know already. It is not clear what difference Dr Lam Akol Ajawin will make when he is the president of GOSS and commander-in-chief of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA). He tried in 1991 but what has he to show as a success story before the CPA. Dr Lam Akol Ajawin has not said how he is going to address the problem in GOSS. We need a, b, c, d and e of mechanisms of addressing the problem. General statements of problem and solutions which anybody can make are insufficient although could be the basis for further work.

Dr Lam Akol Ajawin did not elaborate further the alternative to the South not choosing independence at the moment. Even if he wins in the April elections to become the next president of GOSS and commander-in-chief of the SPLA it is realistic to address the problem before the referendum in 2011. According to Dr Lam Akol Ajawin, “Under the present weak government in the south, calling for secession would be suicide”, and he continues, “At the moment, with the state of hostility in the south, with the state of tribal conflicts, intra-tribal conflicts, any call for secession at this moment will be a call for the `Somalisation` of Southern Sudan”. To paraphrase what is being tried to be put across, it may look like, “At the moment under the present weak government in the south a call for independence is a suicide”. I hope this does not amount to misquoting Dr Lam Akol Ajawin or putting words into his mouth.

What is quoted of Dr Lam Akol Ajawin may look like a piece from a campaign rally of NCP. I am in agreement that we need a strong government that is able to take tough decisions. It is evident that Dr Lam Akol Ajawin believes that he is the one to form that strong government by offering himself for nomination for the presidency of GOSS. Surely Dr Lam Akol Ajawin knows that in the CPA referendum in the South is only once in 2011. When southerners vote for unity in 2011 because of the warning against independence, they will have no chance to reverse from unity to independence in a later date. Dr Lam Akol Ajawin is fully aware of this. His phrase `at the moment` without being qualified is misleading. The referendum for independence of the South takes place in January 2011. It is clear that by April 2010 Dr Lam Akol Ajawin would like to be the president of GOSS to lead a strong government that will be ready for independence of the South by January 2011. However, when it is not Dr Lam Akol Ajawin as the president of GOSS then it is a weak government and so southerners voting for independence is a suicide. I hope people are aware of the games being played out in the open. Dr Lam Akol Ajawin is one individual out of the 8 million conservative estimate of the population of Southern Sudan. He is no match to the will of the majority of the 8 million people of Southern Sudan. Dr Lam Akol Ajawin has plenty of time to waste but one rotten apple can destroy the whole bag of apples.

Dr Lam Akol Ajawin seems to be one individual very serious about the unity of Sudan which will make him an excellent bed fellow with the NCP. When he and others met in Kenana Sugar Industrial Complex in April 2009 all took a national unity stand. The much publicised weaknesses of GOSS are now a rubber stamp to confirm the national unity stand Dr Lam Akol Ajawin took in Kenana in April 2009. However, his commitment to unity of Sudan will not stop southerners from exercising their right to vote in the referendum for independence if they so wish. One the other hand independence to the South will not stop Dr Lam Akol Ajawin from contesting for the presidency of independent South. The fear that is being promoted through scaremongering may be a tactical move to attract resources from the NCP for the election campaign. Failure of Dr Lam Akol Ajawin in the polls will be another signal of troubles. The `Somalisation` of Southern Sudan may be in full swing as the defeated SPLM-DC will do anything to make the South ungovernable in order to be picky on SPLM especially when SPLM is the party in government. To avoid this scenario SPLM strategist will need to identify key issues and mechanisms to address the issues using a participatory approach which is inclusive even of SPLM-DC if that will be conveniently acceptable.

When Dr Lam Akol Ajawin was minister of foreign affairs in GONU he did positive things. He effected the recruitment of southerners to the diplomatic service. Many southerners are now out as ambassadors. Dr Lam Akol Ajawin showed the world that the South has capable people as those found in the North. Previously the number of southerners in the diplomatic service was limited. The on-going South-South dialogue should be inclusive of all southern political parties. It is important people open up to the wind of change of transparency and democracy. Southern Sudan is not the preserve of one particular political party or ethnic group. We need to encourage openness and appreciate our diversities as a source of strength.

In conclusion Dr Lam Akol Ajawin criticism of SPLM should not be taken too far. The positive aspect of the criticism is that it is like a mirror. SPLM should not dismiss any criticism out of hand. A criticism whether justified or not is an indication that something somewhere may not be right. It is important to have self-examination of issues raised in criticism. There may be a grain of truth in criticism. In a way Dr Lam Akol Ajawin has a point that should be noted instead of being dismissed. It is important that weaknesses are worked on to improve the situation instead of turning a blind eye. Reconciliation between SPLM and SPLM-DC should start even if it means making use of consultants and this should be taken in the best interest of southern unity as we approach the referendum year. People with the best interest of the South at heart will not object to reconciliation. Problems are enormous and no single individual can pretend to have all the answers. Teamwork is therefore important and particularly so in Southern Sudan. We have to be aware of the enemies of peace and the CPA who are out to sow a seed of discord for destruction in the South. We are only one year away from the referendum and this is the time to show the world that Southern Sudan is capable of managing its own affairs.

The author can be reached at [email protected]