Differences between tribal loyalty and constituency loyalty

By Zechariah Manyok Biar

February 2, 2010 — One of the two things will happened after the upcoming elections in Sudan, especially in the South. We will either take an inch in progress or we will take an inch backward. I believe that things will not stay as they are today, whether for worse or for better. Leaders, especially Members of Parliament (MPs) who will be mandated by people will probably be influenced by people, either negatively or positively. This is the reason why those of us who take trouble to contribute ideas are advocating for particular political practice. My concern is that governance can change our people’s current behavior of tribal loyalty or the people’s behavior will change the government to suit their current behavior. This issue looks trivial, but it is critical.

We may pretend that we love our nation. But the love of a nation differs from place to place or from person to person. This is because human beings love to associate themselves with particular identity. The identity can be wider when one compares himself or herself with a different larger group. For example, here in the United States, those of us who are from Africa call ourselves Africans because we are using our identity in opposition to larger identity of American citizens. Americans would also divide their identities into North and South America. A country in this situation becomes smaller like a tribe.

When I am in Sudan, I call myself South Sudanese because I am using my identity in opposition to that of Northerners. But I am from Jonglei State in South Sudan. The identity narrows down to tribe, clan, and family. This is a reality, not a fantasy. We can only ignore it when we are willing to be insincere.

Not only do human beings love to have particular identity, domestic animals love identity too. That is why we give a cow, a dog, or a cat a particular name and keep using it until the animal responses when it hears that particular word. In other word, identity is taught and learned before it becomes part of us.

Identity can be advantageous or disadvantageous based on the importance people attach to it. We can attach a particular importance to a particular identity and practice it even when we pretend that we do not care about it. This is the practice I am seeing in our tribal identities in Sudan in general and South Sudan in particular today. We are facing a reality that we do not want to admit because it makes us feel uncomfortable at the surface level even though we are immersed in it.

What matters about a problem is not to deny its existence; what matters is to replace the problem with the better one. The better alternative, however, needs the contribution of ideas from all the citizens of any nation. Not just ideas, but ideas that work better somewhere else. That was why I once wrote that South Sudan needed to identify its qualified people all over the world and used them to help leaders make informed decisions.

Although this idea might be good, there must be a political will to accept it. Some of well-qualified people from Sudan living in the Diaspora wrote to me when they read that article and said that they were more than willing to help, but the problem is that people receive them with hostility in South Sudan, leave a lone accepting their ideas.

Dr. Amboga bemoaned the situation that those who contribute ideas face when he said this in his article published by Gurtong: “And because written criticisms reach their targets promptly and mostly when the readers are on their own, we hope that God Almighty will at that time open their eyes to see and seek repentance.” Dr. Amboga prays that God opens the eyes of readers who are not on their own. That makes sense.

Even though I do not agree with Dr. Amboga in everything he says, I agree with him in most cases even when he criticizes me, because he is sincere and open-minded. Dr. Amboga sometimes gives credit where it due, but most of his readers still intentionally block his ideas out simply because he belongs to a particular party or a particular tribe. This is disadvantageous especially when we are yearning for progress in our nation.

Resistance to ideas in the name of resistance sometimes forces qualified people to give up and take care of themselves only, since no qualified person can fail to get a job anywhere in the world where good ideas are treasured. Some of the qualified South Sudanese that are now working here in the USA get about $13,000 per a month. But they are still willing to leave those luxurious jobs to help their nation of South Sudan. Is that a simple offer? It is clearly a great offer, but our tribal loyalty can discourage them from leaving their places where their important contributions are recognized. We need to change if we want to progress.

This is the reason why I am advocating for constituency loyalty against tribal loyalty that blocks progress under the pretext of nationalism.

However, we must be careful about constituency loyalty because it can easily be mixed up with tribal loyalty, since they look the same at the surface level. Let us examine how constituency loyalty is different from tribal loyalty.

Tribal loyalty operates at political level only. The central concepts in politics, as Lee G. Bolman and Terrence E. Deal mention in their book “Reframing Organizations” include power, conflict, and competition. These concepts can be dangerous in particular settings and can be useful in particular settings.

Power, conflict, and competition are dangerous in tribal politics because they result in violence during tribes’ struggle for recognition. Larger tribes might be comfortable in tribal politics but the smaller ones can really suffer even if they associate themselves with the larger ones.

Another dangerous thing about tribal loyalty is that it becomes a loyalty with no end. For example, one becomes loyal to the whole tribe when dealing with people from different tribe, loyal to his or her section within a tribe when dealing with another section, loyal to his or her clan when dealing with other clans in the same section, and loyal to his or her family when dealing with other families within a clan. This too is a reality, not a fantasy and it is disadvantageous in politics even if we pretend that we do not practice it.

Constituencies, in my observation, are different from tribes because they have limit of loyalty and they operate at the symbolic level. The central concepts at the symbolic level, according to Bolman and Deal, include meaning, metaphor, ritual, ceremony, stories, heroes, and inspiration.

About ninety percent of successful institutions and companies operate at the symbolic level. This is the reason why I tell success stories of some leaders in South Sudan to inspire others. I admire symbolic level. Constituencies promote symbolic relationships among people that are called by the name of that constituency, regardless of their race or tribe. One big tribe cannot be in one constituency. So, tribal identity becomes less important for political reason under the constituency.

Constituency loyalty is limited when compared with tribal loyalty because a political leader gets pressure of people’s needs at the level of constituency. One must still have some attachment to his or her clan, but will always think about winning the backing of the voters at the level of constituency.

The advantage of constituency loyalty is that smaller tribes may compete in politics because they are dealing with the interests of constituencies at their size and leaders are not using general tribal identity of a larger tribe in their political advantage, because a larger tribe will have many constituencies. Constituencies are also formed based on geographical areas that put different tribes under one constituency sometimes. That means, proximity and familiarity become the important elements of relationships in constituencies.

Politics at this level becomes constructive then destructive. Politicians will become serious to work for the betterment of their constituencies as part of their competitions with other constituencies’ politicians. Legislations that are passed in parliament will always address the needs of all constituencies to some levels, because the MPs will not let their constituencies be disadvantaged through legislation.

National identity would now be clearly spelled out because every area feels that its needs are being considered through their representative. The capable members of particular constituencies will make plans for the year and make sure that they succeed because they take direct responsibility instead of putting blame on the President or Ministers for their incompetence. Success stories of competent leaders than inspire leaders who are not yet super-competent. That is what progress is all about.

All in all, we should be careful about mixing tribal loyalty with constituency loyalty. On the other hand, we should not pretend that we are not practicing tribal loyalty now in South Sudan, unless we are not willing to deal away with what disadvantages many citizens in our nation. Therefore, I am for constituency loyalty.

Zechariah Manyok Biar is a graduate student at Abilene Christian University, Texas, USA. He just graduated with a Master of Arts in Christian Ministry and he is still pursuing a Master of Science in Social Work, specializing in Administration and Planning. He can be contacted at [email protected]