The South Sudan post-secession options of governance: lessons and experiences 1-4

By Dhieu Mathok Diing Wol

July 27, 2010 — This is an attempt to expose views, which are helpful in policy-making in Southern Sudan to enable decision-makers plan for good future of the newly emerging state. I am not sure whether the SPLM Task Force on post-referendum arrangements, especially, the sub-committee for Governance in Southern Sudan in 2012 chaired by H.E Kosti Maniba is mandated to explore on constitutional options of the governance, or there is another small group assigned secretly to do the job, as NCP besieges SPLM leadership for working on separation in a broad day.

The post-secession options of the governance are equally important as post-referendum issues for which if the South seceded without such options its fate will be clumsy, and it may be disputed between politicians and the army like many African countries, which their independence became a tragedy to the citizens. Having options of governance ahead of time is necessary as to enable each government institution prepares its own task with clear position and roll after the secession immediately without creating another long interim period, which creates a vacuum for ill-intentions.

Basic principles of good governance, political stability, economic development, security preservation, peace sustainability and prosperity of a young nation need critical examination and exploration. Those models of governance which are relatively relevant are to be matched and picked the most reliable and flexible one for the application. In the process of the selection, many factors are considered, among these; cultural background of people of Southern Sudan, political history of this great nation, naive rate of literacy, availability of natural resources, vastness of geographical distance of the area, ethnic homogeneity of the tribes and religious diversity (which is actually not a problematic in the South until this moment).

The topic will meanly concentrate on the likely types of governance (Centralization or Decentralization), types of Republic (Presidential or Prime Ministerial), types of economy (Liberal or Social Economy) and types of the political system (Liberal Democracy or Guided Democracy). Many lessons and experiences are to be drawn and cited from other countries with the similar situation to help understanding and support the argument. These are to be treated in four articles, once a week.
With this brief introduction, let us see what these options suggested.

CENTRALIZATION VS DECENTRALIZATION

The discussion on this issue of Centralization Vs Decentralization will not go deep in exploration of its theoretical aspects as well as options applicable to Southern Sudan for the fact that, the citizens have already resolved their preference, and the existing federalism is believed to be an acquired right which nobody would attempt to abandon it, otherwise he/she will be inviting problems. Hence, the possible options are classified within the framework of decentralization.

In a very simple term centralization is a system where policies and decisions are made top-down. The vision of leadership is the one guided future in a nation. Changes are made according to well of leadership hence the accountability rest on his/her hands. In contrary, decentralization is a system where policies and decisions are bottom-up made. Decisions are taken democratically and changes come through interaction of people. Many scholars criticize decentralization for its lose control that if unity among people is friable then it can be easily fragile.

Within a federal system, a country can exercise centralization or decentralization. Some people think mistakenly that if a country is divided up into many states or regions then there is decentralization. Federalism is a dynamic system which actually sometimes introduces to solve political crises. It is politically orienting type of governance. Some countries with the federal system of government have more centralized powers than those states seen as having a centralized system of government in their structural framework, particularly if the head of state is an authoritarian. The availability of states or regions in any federal structures cannot justify effectiveness of decentralization. The devolution of powers to lower level(s) is a matter of constitutional arrangements and not a terminological perception. There are countries, which devoted more powers to grassroots to enable specialized units of administrations like education, health, veterinary, agriculture, do their duties in the grassroots without declaring themselves as federal states.

Within decentralization, there are three types, which are varied according to a degree of conferring powers to people; the first type is “deconcentration” where powers are given to lower level(s) in a weak constitutional form; the second is known to be a “delegation”, which is a more extensive form of decentralization, and the last form of decentralization is “devolution” where the authority is completely transferred to autonomous organizations. Each system has its own merits and demerits, which are equally important. The choice is usually based on suitability of each system to people and how it can enhance their living conditions. Sometimes the conferral of powers can be made to more than two levels as the case in the Sudan.

In Kenya and Uganda for example, decentralization is operating through two levels; that is central and provincial levels. County Commissioners exercise extensive powers over local issues with necessary intervention from the central government when major issues affecting national interest are under threats. The decentralization system in these two counties is opposed to the Sudanese system, where there are three levels in the North and four levels in the South, creating duplication in functions, duties and responsibilities. For example, in Juba County (JC) nobody knows whose task of collecting waste materials lies upon! Is it a responsibility of GOSS, Central Equatoria State (CES), JC or a particular Payam?

The current system of decentralization in Sudan which was actually believed to be ranking on the first type of decentralization (deconcentration), generated its existence from political deception to the people of peripheries of Sudan in order to silence the voices who were loudly calling for participation in the central government in Khartoum and not a necessity dictated by condition of life in the Country. This theory of throwing bones to the marginalized people of Sudan in the peripheries works a lot and managed to rally-up popular support to NCP after a very serious opposition upon their arrival to power in 1989. This continued until CPA was signed and the Agreement confirmed the system with little improvements by suggesting changes in the clusters/tables of those powers delegated to the states, shifting the decentralization system of government from the first type “deconcentration” to the second type “delegation” in the North and level of GOSS, leaving states in the South at mercy of the president of GOSS. Some State’s Governors ran their daily affairs through unnecessary continuous consultations with the President either through phone calls or travelling to Juba to seek an advice. Meanwhile others are making their own dangerous decisions that contradicted State’s powers without going back to the President. Some have decided to deal with Khartoum even without notice from Juba. With the newly elected governors in offices, the future of federal and semi-federal institutions in their states is at stake, each governor begins to formulate his/her own state’s structures without referring to the State or GOSS Constitutions. It is a chaotic situation which needs an immediate ratification by the newly emerging state in South Sudan.

The weakness of the current federal system in Sudan is not on matters of degree of powers conferred to the lower levels, but it is a problem of inapplicability as far as the South concerned. It was based on Islamic philosophy of governance where certain powers are retained by central government and ready to be passed to those states willing to enact Sharia laws not even by constitution or decree but in most cases through green-light from Imam/Amir. In Islamic system of governance, judicial and security powers are reserved by the head of state to be only delegated to Muslim fellow within a contact of the same sect and not everyone. This made decentralization in Sudan a failed one and not wining trust of the people and consequently becomes a loose nature of governance.

In the process of the newly emerging state, South Sudan should explore its own system of governance rather than imitating the model which doesn’t comply with its reality. Few questions that need exposition and answers are; do we really need decentralization? What are necessary justifications for the forthcoming system of the governance in South Sudan? Is there any necessity for three or more levels of decentralization? Do all conditions that necessary to decentralize powers to lower level(s) are favorable? Some conditions like availability of local resources, vastness of geographical areas that make the administration uneasy, cultural diversity of the population that makes it impossible to be governed as one unit, all these and other similar ones are to be properly met before taking any decision on a model of governance in South Sudan. It is very crucial to South Sudan to take a confidently step rather than rushing into a system that requires high expertise on lower level(s) at the end of the day the result is a repentance. The current model exuded many weaknesses on ground especially in South Sudan; this is clearly seen in the areas of community security where some times the disputes between tribes/sections are stopped by the SPLA forces, incompetence of administration in Counties, Payams and Bomas is in tongue of NGOs and donors, lack of proper coordination and loose federal linkages is even realized by the President, a situation made him to appoint the adviser to fill the gap. However, this system could be appreciated for the fact that it managed to absorb many politicians and power seekers in its numerous structures which made it contributing effectively in the reduction of political conflict and ethnic disputes over constitutional and ministerial positions in the States and Counties.

Back to our topic, decentralization can take steps before highly implemented, starting from less extensive to more extensive in a time when people believe all factors are in favor of the system. It is worth mentioning that the philosophical prospective of notion of decentralization existed in the SPLM literatures of governance. The philosophy of “taking towns to people” instead of people to towns is a highly civilization method of serving an average person in rural areas which represents 80% of the Southern Sudanese population. Nevertheless, the mechanism on how this ideal philosophical proposition could be implemented remains a big challenge to SPLM. Because taking towns to people can be in many ways, either through taking government units and services to grassroots, which is very expensive in term of cost or through privatization of economy such that the private sector can lead the public sector by taking basic services to the people, which will be only advantageous to those who can afford buying these goods and services. Good example is Dubai, a desert land which its growth came as a result of economic booming after privatization and adaption of liberal economy policy in The Arab United of Emirates.

Continue next week with Presidential system Vs. Prime Ministerial.

Dr. Dhieu Mathok is former minister and author of Politics of Ethnic Discrimination in Sudan: A Justification for the Secession of South Sudan. He can be reached [email protected].