Is SPLM wrong in disowning its independent candidates?
By Zechariah Manyok Biar
February 20, 2010 — Political decisions are the toughest decisions to make in this world because they lead to criticisms however much they may be carefully calculated. The recent decision of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) to disown its independent candidates in the upcoming elections is going to be the topic of hot debate for a while. Those who have already written articles about the decision have put all the blames on SPLM simply because SPLM messed up the selection process in the first place. The problem is that SPLM had no any other choice after it failed to persuade its independents to step down. I am going to analyze the issue in a different way, based on political reality.
First, it is fair to recognize that SPLM Political Bureau was wrong in turning down candidates favored by their constituents in favor of the so-called SPLM loyalists. Those who are now running as independent candidates because they were unfairly left out have the support of every South Sudanese. Gordon Buay in his position over the independents’ issue in a press release put out on February 12, 2010 acknowledged this unfairness in the following two paragraphs:
“For instance, the rejection of popularly nominated candidate such as Lt. Gen. Mark Nyipuoc of Western Bhar el Ghazal is a case to be cited. Lt. Gen. Mark was elected with 98% of the vote by the electoral college of SPLM in Western Bhar el Ghazal; however, the SPLM Political Bureau selected somebody else.
“Another glaring injustice is the case of Upper Nile State, where the SPLM Political Bureau selected somebody who did not make it to the list of Upper Nile State Electoral College. His name was not even on the list of three candidates from Upper Nile State sent to the Political Bureau.”
But Mr. Buay makes it clear that not all the current independent candidates are intending to run because they were mistreated in the selection process. He recommends that such candidates be dismissed. Mr. Buay writes, “However, independent candidates from areas where “irregularities” did not take place should not be allowed to retain their SPLM’s membership if they refuse to withdraw from election because they don’t have a case akin to those independents using democratic and due process arguments. It appeared that there are individuals who declared themselves as independents although irregularities did not take place in their Electoral Colleges. In the category where this group of independents falls, the PB would be justified to discipline them should they fail to withdraw from the upcoming election.”
The blame that people now put on SPLM for disowning its members running as independent would be unfair if some members of SPLM decided to run as independent despite the fact that no irregularities have taken place in their constituencies or states. SPLM would be justified in disowning such candidates.
On the other hand, even if all SPLM members running as independents had genuine cases against the nomination for irregularities, they would still be disowned by SPLM because there are few places, if any, in the world where independent candidates run against their party nominees under the banner of the same party. Independent candidates can only join the members of Parliament (MPs) for the party that shares their political philosophies after they have won elections as independents. Independence in politics means having no party.
The other thing that justifies SPLM Political Bureau’s decision to disown independent candidates is that in administration, it is difficult to close the door that you have opened. If SPLM had given freedom to these candidates to run as independent candidates within the party, then there would be no reason for preventing anybody to do so in the future. This principle has nothing to do with what situation the administration faces now, it has everything to do with what happens in the future. Solutions can be found to political mistake, but it is hard to reverse a politically granted freedom. So SPLM was careful about putting itself in two difficult situations that it would have to rectify in the future.
Second, SPLM must learn a lesson in its current mistake and avoid the selection problem in the future. Primaries must be introduced to prevent future complaints. Constituents should fully elect members that would stand as their SPLM candidates. The role of Political Bureau would be to welcome only one candidate sent by his or her constituents. This process was half done this year. The mistake happened when SPLM Political Bureau decided to complete the nomination that the constituents had started. That was how the system got messed up.
According to Buay, “The reason why each Electoral College was required to send three names was because if it appeared that the one on the top could not meet the requirements of Sudan National Election Act, the PB would then endorse the second candidate who may not have legal impediments to represent the party as per the rules of the NEC.”
This would have been a good reason. But the fact is that it is easy to check the requirements of candidates who want to run the moment they want to register for Primaries. There is no reason for allowing the unqualified candidate to waste his or her resources to run for Primaries only to be rejected after he or she is nominated by his or her constituents. This by itself is a mistake of the party that needs to be avoided in the future.
In conclusion, however much SPLM Political Bureau has done a mistake in the process of party candidates’ selection, the decision to disown those who have decided to run as independents is politically and administratively correct, because it is unwise to open the door to a practice that you may not continue to allow in the future.
Independence in politics also means having no party. So whoever calls himself/herself independent is telling the world that he or she belongs to no party. Independents do not remain independent forever. Therefore, those who are now independent may rejoin SPLM later when their political adventure has ended.
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. For comments, contact him at email: [email protected]
DOOR
Is SPLM wrong in disowning its independent candidates?
“The Nuer quest for rights and democracy”.
Listen to this:
A Nuer was in an airplane. Other passengers got drinks in cups with uniform color. The Nuer got his in a different color by chance. The Nuer lashed at the hostess: “Am I not equal to others that you gave me a different cup? Take it away. I do not want to drink”. One passenger volunteered to exchange cups. The problem was solved. The Nuer was satisfied that his “dignity and equality” was restored. He did not care about how people thought of him. He cared about the end result. Anyway, that was the Nuer equality at its best anywhere at anytime. What remains to be seen is whether all the Nuer will ride a car and live in a house like that of Salva Kiir in order to be equal.
Pwad Achob
Is SPLM wrong in disowning its independent candidates?
Hi Door,
You are a sick person. I do not know how southern sudan can be a progressive country if people of your type are the rulers.
You and people like you are pathetic.Nuers are citizens like you as such you have to respect them than make joks on them.You are cultivating hatred than unity among southerners.You such an idiot.
Time1
Is SPLM wrong in disowning its independent candidates?
SPLM is not wrong to fire its independent members, by going independent the members are the ones who isolated themselves from SPLM and decided to go their own way. This happens any democratic systems allover the world where party members go independent and are dismissed or disowned by their parties, it happened in the last American elections when joe libermann was dismiseed for running as independent against democratic nomineee Barack Obama, but libermann was later reinstated back to the democratic party after they worked out their differences.
This is a normal process it is not judgement day or end of the world for independent nominees dismissed.
Gatwech
Is SPLM wrong in disowning its independent candidates?
Zechariah Manyok Biar,
Your argument is good but you finally left it hanging in the air without a suggested solution to the very “mess” you acknowledged was invited by the so-called Political Bureau.
May be you wanted to sound neutral, but did you need to be neutral between independent candidates and the PB in this situation?
You reminded me of a funny story in Nuer when a guy tried to judge what when wrong between two of his colleagues (persons) while he feared to reveal who was wrong and how the issue could be resolved. He said “both of you are right but you should continue to talk it over.” Did he provide any solution?
If you understand that the PB messed up the selection process and the unfairly left out nominees opted to go independent, then what do you think could have been the solution?
To me, the PB should have withdrawn its messed up nominations and accepted the originally nominated candidates by the grassroots (original list). This would have fairly solved the problem. Any one outside the original list and who would defiantly continue to contest as independent candidate while his name was not in the original grassroots nominations would then be dealt with by the PB.
But accepting the mess of the PB and forcing the independents out is like solving a mistake with another mistake. And it is unfair for writers like yourself, Manyok, to just leave things hanging without ‘fair’ suggested solutions or any solution at all after acknowledging the cause of the mess….