Is SPLM-DC trustworthy to lead South Sudan to independence?

By Jacob K. Lupai

February 17, 2010 — Is SPLM-DC trustworthy to lead South Sudan to independence may be a one million dollar question or a one hundred thousand word thesis for a doctorate. The upcoming April elections for the first time in 24 years will be a milestone in Sudan’s modern history. The various political parties are already in frenzied activity, endeavouring to put together a programme to convince the electorate of their credibility and what they will do when in government. The blame game is in full swing. Each party is claiming it has answers to the problems we face in the country and they will make a difference where others are claimed to have miserably failed. However, beneath the claims is salesmanship in practice to attract votes. Whether any party elected to lead a government will make a difference is best left to be seen. A critical analysis, nonetheless, of a party’s programme may give a glimpse of the inclination of the party.

The focus here is on the April elections in the South and importantly on the election for the presidency of the government of Southern Sudan (GOSS). There are two main political parties contesting the seat of the president of GOSS. The two parties are the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement for democratic change (SPLM-DC). The acronyms SPLM and SPLM-DC may for the first time appear to a foreigner as odd. It is obvious that the suffix DC in the latter acronym suggests strongly that the SPLM-DC is a breakaway of the former. Although a breakaway of the SPLM, the SPLM-DC is a registered political party in its own right. By retaining the original name of SPLM, the SPLM-DC strategists hope to hoodwink the SPLM original supporters to vote for the SPLM-DC. The SPLM-DC strategy is also to hype up SPLM weaknesses as a recruitment drive for members. The question one may ask is what is the difference between the programmes of the two parties. The question also to ask is how differently are the two parties perceived. I will come back later with answers to the above questions including the main question as the topic of this article.

The Chairman of SPLM is the incumbent President of GOSS, Lt General Salva Kiir Mayardit and the Chairman of SPLM-DC is Dr Lam Akol Ajawin, formerly the Sudan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs in the government of national unity (GONU) on SPLM ticket. The SPLM ran into difficulties with Lam Akol for his alleged closeness to the lead party, the National Congress Party (NCP) in the GONU. However, Lam Akol ignored warning signals from the SPLM which understandably was getting impatient. Lam Akol defiance or rather arrogance earned him a sack as Minster of Foreign Affairs and eventual exit from the SPLM. Exasperated of what was seen as the SPLM abdication of responsibility and dictatorship Lam Akol went on the offensive, setting himself a task of rejuvenating the SPLM by calling for a democratic change. He denounced the SPLM and the GOSS as very corrupt and incompetent to rule the South. Convinced of his mission beyond reasonable doubt as the saviour of the South as he had convinced himself in 1991, Lam Akol had no time to waste but to take a practical action to form a new political party known as SPLM-DC.

Now let’s try to find answers to the above two questions of the difference between the SPLM and the SPLM-DC programme, and how are the two parties perceived differently. Basically there isn’t much difference between the programmes of the two parties because most of the programmes are based on the comprehensive peace agreement (CPA) of 2005. The only difference is that Lam Akol perceives the SPLM as corrupt, incompetent and undemocratic hence his call for democratic change. However, it seems Lam Akol wants things done his way no matter what. He perceives the SPLM as a failure for the last five years of the life of the CPA. The GOSS which is led by the SPLM is perceived as having squandered vial resources for development. Lam Akol claims he will put in place a programme that addresses the concerns of the people in the South in terms of service delivery and the problem of salaries. He accuses the GOSS of neglecting the families of martyrs and the wounded heroes. The list can go on and on. On agriculture Lam Akol, is hundred per cent right. In one of my articles, Agriculture vital in Southern Sudan but neglected, I had shown that the GOSS indeed miserably failed to develop agriculture for self-reliance in production for the achievement of household food security.

Without beating about the bush Lam Akol has pointed out issues that need attention. Indeed the SPLM and the GOSS have not performed to the expected standard in the last five years. However, what difference will the SPLM-DC make when in government. There may be reconciliation and the same corrupt and incompetent people may find their way to government under Lam Akol. When Lam Akol as the greatest master conspirator the South has ever produced attempted to stage a coup to overthrow John Garang because of more or less the same accusations what difference did he make thereafter. Lam Akol’s claim that he will be above corruption, competent and democratic is at best questionable. Also some of the problems Lam Akol complains of may be beyond the reach of the SPLM and the GOSS. For example, north-south border demarcation is being obstructed by the NCP which may have close links to the SPLM-DC. At any rate there isn’t much difference between the two parties. The difference is in the alleged SPLM and GOSS poor performance in contrast to the imagined SPLM-DC high performance when in government.

The difference between the two parties is that one is in government and the other is outside. In a poll conducted by Sudan Tribune (8 February 2010) on the voting in South Sudan presidential elections Salva Kiir of the SPLM got 75.6 while Lam Akol of the SPLM-DC got 24.4 per cent of the votes in a sample size of 705 respondents. However, the larger the sample size the narrower the margin becomes. For the poll on 13 February in the evening the two parties were running neck and neck with equal votes. In the last poll on 14 February the SPLM got 48.9 and the SPLM-DC got 51.1 per cent of the votes in a sample of 21,928 respondents. The implication is that people really do not see any much difference between the two parties. So the strategy of Lam Akol to discredit Salva Kiir in the eyes of the electorate seems not to be working. However, the poll should be taken with caution because validity may be a problem.

In Pachodo.org website a poll on 15 February showed Lam Akol getting 72.5 and Salva Kiir 27.5 per cent of the votes in a sample of 51 respondents. On 16 February Lam Akol got 76.1 and Salva Kiir 23.9 per cent of votes in a sample of 67. On 17 February Lam Akol got 75.3 and Salva Kiir 22.1 per cent of votes in a sample of 77. The three polls results showed a fair consistency. Lam Akol rating was higher than that of Salva Kiir in the three polls. However, the sample size was small compared to the sample size in the polls in Sudan Tribune. The respondents in the Pachodo.org website polls could have been members of Lam Akol’s extended family, his campaign managers and core supporters with probably their wives and girlfriends. Given at times our tribal politics couldn’t Lam Akol garner votes from his kinsmen? It is not strange of course.

I have been going round the bush for more than enough. Let’s now focus on the main question, is SPLM-DC trustworthy to lead South Sudan to independence? I will now try to answer the question. However, it could have been interesting to see how people would have reacted if Sudan Tribune could have also taken a poll on who would lead South Sudan to independence, the SPLM or the SPLM-DC. The SPLM-DC is in the South Sudan alliance of political parties. Before the formation of he SPLM-DC when the alliance met in Kenana in the North in April 2009 to plan on how to respond to the SPLM alleged mismanagement in the South and the SPLM perceived lack of cooperation with the NCP, the stand taken in the meeting was for national unity. Lam Akol was one of the leading members in that meeting. Recently Lam Akol made a controversial statement that secession of the South would be the “Somalisation” of the South. However, it was then claimed that Lam Akol was misquoted. Given the background of the meeting in Kenana Lam Akol was simply fulfilling the pledge for national unity that had been made in Kenana. Lam Akol’s concept of equating secession with “Somalisation” of the South was nothing but scaremongering the NCP style.

In an interview that appeared in South Sudan Nation (14 February 2010) Lam Akol said the pros and cons of either secession or unity including the implication of self-determination have not been sufficiently explained to south Sudanese. In reading Lam Akol’s interview I raised my suspicion from Amber to Red. Do south Sudanese really need to know the pros and cons of secession for independence? What was the motive behind the explanation of the pros and cons of secession or unity? Presumably the explanation was for south Sudanese to make informed judgement in casting their votes in the referendum. However, did the Eritreans need to know the pros and cons of secession for independence or unity with Ethiopia?

It seems it is becoming clear why the NCP has not proposed a candidate for the presidency of GOSS. Lam Akol’s effort to sow a seed of doubt in the minds of south Sudanese is a typical NCP manipulation to discourage the inclination to independence. Lam Akol may be a probable proxy of NCP disguised as SPLM-DC chairman contesting the presidency of GOSS. What was the NCP hidden agenda to nominate a candidate for the governorship of a state, a lower position than that of the president of GOSS? The only explanation one may have is that the NCP is certain it has the SPLM-DC as its agent in the South. Voting for SPLM-DC is by extension voting for NCP. Voting for Lam Akol to be the next president-elect of GOSS will therefore be like plunging a dagger to clear away the inclination to independence the way Lam Akol had attempted in 1991 to clear away the SPLM. It was John Garang with his survival skills in wilderness that saved the South from being handed over to the NCP in a golden plate. Fortunately Lam Akol went alone and handed himself over to the NCP leaving John Garang in peace to continue with the struggle. It will be southern national suicide to vote for the SPLM-DC to be the lead party in GOSS. There is no guarantee that the SPLM-DC will not take instructions from the NCP to sabotage the referendum for self-determination. The SPLM-DC is simply untrustworthy to lead South Sudan to independence.

Salva Kiir Mayardit, despite all the allegations against him, is the man to trust because he will guarantee the right of the South to self-determination and possible independence. Unlike Lam Akol, Salva Kiir did not shuttle between the SPLM and the NCP in search of green pastures. Since the inception of the SPLM Salva Kiir has stood with the SPLM in better times and also in its critical hour of survival. While Lam Akol was feasting with the NCP in Khartoum Salva Kiir was in the trenches in the South keeping the fire of the struggle burning until the CPA that Lam Akol now lauds. As the president of GOSS and commander-in-chief of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), Salva Kiir will use the might of the SPLA to protect the result of the referendum for independence. As for Lam Akol he will instead try to protect the South by explaining the pros and cons of independence praying earnestly that the cons outweigh the pros so that south Sudanese are discouraged of going down the route of independence.

Surviving on wild vegetables but in freedom is better than feasting with all the splendour of dishes but under slavery. Independence to the South is already recognised. Omar Hassan El Bashir of Sudan and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt will recognise independence for the South if that is the choice of south Sudanese. Who is that southerner who needs the explanation of pros and cons of independence? I hope Lam Akol understands that southerners are not as naive as he would like the world to know. According to the poll taken by Sudan Tribune (16 February 2010) on how would one vote in the 2011 referendum 82.2 per cent of the people voted for independence and 17.5 for unity with North Sudan in a sample of 3,730 respondents. On 17 February the poll showed that 83.2 per cent of the people voted for independence and 16.6 for unity with the North in a sample of 5,261. The sample might not have been representative but the implication is clear. The vast majority of people would like to see independence for South Sudan. This is understandable. What did the South gain from Sudan’s independence in 1956 from colonial rule other than deliberate gross underdevelopment, brutal destruction of life and property, the scattering of people as refugees across the globe and the humanitarian disasters of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Southern Sudan? The world must understand the deep seated mistrust between the North and the South.

In wrapping up what should happen now is for the South to have a master plan for post-referendum situation in relation to the North. A master plan can be generated through papers in seminars organised by either by the SPLM or the GOSS. It is here that I agree with Lam Akol that people should not shy away from discussing the post-referendum issues to make people to understand how to cope. All along he has a point. The SPLM must wake up and reform to remain a dominant party in the South. What is bad in Sudanese politics is that people are polarised. However, on the personal level Sudanese are unique in that they are friendly and close to each other. Northerners and southerners studied together in schools, worked together in offices, ate together and intermarry or have intimate relationships that on personal level they get on well but politics polarises them. I would naturally feel more comfortable and at home with northern friends in Khartoum than I would in Nairobi, Kampala or Kinshasa. One may only feel uncomfortable in Khartoum because of the restrictive nature of Sharia where for example shaking a woman’s hand or touching may cause a trouble with Islamic police. I tried to hag a childhood neighbour in a Khartoum North hospital then I sensed people looking at us as if I had dropped from another planet. My childhood neighbour and I laughed. However, the cordial personal relations between northerners and southerners may be very helpful in promoting peaceful co-existence between the North and the South in the event that the South becomes independent.

There is high probability that relations between the North and the South will be peaceful despite the claim of agents of scaremongering. There may be especial relations where passports may not be needed in crossing the common border. The North is going to be an important trading partner of the South. Frequent consultations between the North and the South will ease worries. It will be in the interest of the North to have a stable South. The North must admit its responsibility for the bad treatment of the South and also accept the independence for the South as inevitable to end centuries of mistrust between the two parts of the country. The North and the South should instead work on new type of relations in the best common interest. The question is when and how to initiate a new type of relation between the North and the South. Dr Lam Akol Ajawin could be an asset here.

In conclusion whether it is Lt General Salva Kiir Mayardit of the SPLM or Dr Lam Akol Ajawin of the SPLM-DC as president-elect of GOSS in the April elections, reconciliation should be initiated immediately. South-South dialogue should be resuscitated with the participation of all southern political parties, elders, intellectuals, and the youth and women groups to map out the way forward. The worst thing is for the South to go to the referendum as a divided region. The SPLM and the SPLM-DC must be flexible and exemplary. Above all we need a reformed and progressive system that is not a monopoly of one particular group. The vast majority of people are yearning for basic services to improve their quality of life in this modern world. Let’s build a nation that each and everyone are proud of and to demonstrate to the world who are the south Sudanese as a people of a nation.

The author can be reached at [email protected]