Kiir should remove army officers from National Anthem Committee
By Gordon Buay
August 15, 2010 — The news that came out of Juba that SPLA military officers were permitted by the SPLA C-in-C to “lead and facilitate” the formation of the committee for South Sudan National Anthem disturbed the conscience of South Sudan intelligentsia. So many intellectuals began to question the wisdom of giving military officers the license to interfere into politics in violation of strict separation between the armed forces and politics imposed by the Interim Constitution of South Sudan. These officers, who came up with the idea of the national anthem, did not get any resistance from the President of the Government of South Sudan who should have advised them to mind their military business. If any idea from military officers is to be entertained even if political, then, the military officers may one day stop South Sudan Legislative Assembly from discussing a controversial issue involving the army.
In addition to their interference into politics, the sad part of the saga surrounding the national anthem is that these military officers, who are not academic experts, came up with the title “Land of Cush” to be the national anthem of South Sudan. There are no more titles offered except the “Land of Cush”. Neither Maj. Gen. Kuol Deim Kuol nor Col. Malaak Ayuen (the two officers who came up with the idea) is biblical historian who can intellectually defend whether the tribes of the South are the only people in the Horn of Africa who are Cushitic. The biblical scholars already concluded that Cush is referred to Bejas, Oromos of Ethiopia, Somalis and South Sudanese.
The question in the minds of so many educated Southerners is that if the people of South Sudan are not the only people in Africa who are Cushitic, why would these officers title our anthem as “Land of Cush”? One of the tragedies we are facing in South Sudan is that an officer who is not academically an expert in a certain field would claim some knowledge about a certain field. People should remember when late Dr. John Garang made a proposition that Lol in Rumbek could be a Garden of Eden. One could argue that Dr. Garang was using Good News Bible for political propaganda because he was not an expert in the field who should be taken serious. But there are some officers in the SPLA who believe everything Garang said about the creation of human beings because these officers lacked education to conduct more research whether what Garang alleged was a mere propaganda or academic truth that may be authenticated by the experts in biblical history. These officers did not even ask Dr. Garang to provide his academic references to support his propositions either out of ignorance or fear.
The idea behind the title “Land of Cush” originated out of propaganda of Dr. John Garang who used Good News Bible to support his argument for the creation of New Sudan. The problem is that when one reads King James Version, one gets a different interpretation which contradicted Good News Bible John Garang embraced. Because the SPLA officers do not read books on biblical history, they think Dr. John Garang was a religious expert although most educated Southerners know that John Garang was Agro-economist, not biblical historian.
Given the interference of SPLA officers into politics, South Sudan people should come out loudly to condemn such a thing if they want to build a prosperous democratic state in the future. One thing must be clear: If South Sudan will become an independent state, the first obstacle to democratization will come from SPLA officers. The people of the South should clearly understand this. If the people want to create a democratic state in 2011, they should make sure that the SPLA officers are locked in the barracks. South Sudan intelligentsia doesn’t get it up to now why Salva Kiir Mayardit allowed Maj. Gen. Kuol Deim Kuol and Col. Malaak Ayuen to interfere into politics without risking court martial. There is no doubt that President Kiir, in his capacity as C-in-C, might have given them permission to interfere into political affairs at the expense of separation of powers principle enshrined in the Interim Constitution of South Sudan.
People may begin to wonder whether South Sudan politicians learned any lesson from other African countries regarding the army. There have been so many coups in the last sixty years in Africa because the army gets involved in politics. Sudan is one example where the army has become a negative force in democratizing the country. Every Sudanese knows how many coups took place in Sudan. If Kiir Mayardit does not see this, people are afraid he will one day be told by the same SPLA officers to resign from his post as C-in-C.
What the C-in-C of the SPLA should do is to impose principle of civilian supremacy over the military on the SPLA army so that the officers begin to learn the strict separation of military from politics. Many SPLA soldiers have been conditioned for more than twenty five years to give no respect to civilian rule. The military supremacy that reigned supreme during the liberation struggle before the conclusion of the CPA is the first enemy of liberal democracy in South Sudan. If the South is to be made secured from SPLA officers, the GOSS must re-educate the soldiers to subject them to civilian rule. People need to take note from Dr. Pavlov’s experiment where he conditioned a dog to change its behavior. As we know that human beings are also animals like dogs, the army must undergo the same experiment of Dr. Pavlov. The SPLA army leadership must institute a process of slow disengagement of military officers from economic, political, and administrative positions of power. Failure to do so would be a recipe for disaster in the long run because most SPLA officers see civilian supremacy over the military as a foreign notion.
In conclusion, it is imperative for President Kiir to remove Maj. Gen. Kuol Deim Kuol and Col. Malaak Ayuen from the National Anthem Committee so as to observe the strict separation of the army from politics. The primary beneficiary of the separation of powers principle is Salva Kiir Mayardit himself because as a President he would not need military officers to stop Council of Ministers meeting on Fridays to impose their will.
The author is a former secretary general of one SSDF factions. In Nov, 2008, I signed Washington Declaration that merged SSDF and SPLM. He is reachable at [email protected].
DOOR
Kiir should remove army officers from National Anthem Committee
Kuormediit, male malponydu jinethin gaar,
Hon. Gordon Buay, the claims you made against the SPLA officers are the facts which the president should give attention.
Nowhere in the world is the military wing is allowed to meddle in civilian affairs.
It was a mistake that those two SPLA officers were allowed to create the national anthem.
That is the work of civilian administration.
However, as a recognizable member of SPLM it would have been wise if you had directed your complaint to the president directly instead of expressing it like this.
Dinka Boy
Kiir should remove army officers from National Anthem Committee
Dear Southerners,
The only thing that differentiate human being among animals is the way of using their small brain to think critically on isues. First of all, who was meant to be allowed to give the South Sudan the national anthem?
For those who argued that the army officers has no right to give their view on our national anthem,you are deadly arguing flimsyly. We have to be mature in reasoning and i think we will reached the intellectual stage.
Wow! The composintion of the song is not to be ordered by the president. I should not blame my brothers because most of us got blind ever since. Hatred is another disease that will trashed some people to the grave because the rich ideas are always not understood.
Then you guys should name the one who can compose the song for us if you think that others like army must excluded.
Thanks
Dinka Boy
Kiir should remove army officers from National Anthem Committee
“In Nov, 2008, I signed Washington Declaration that merged SSDF and SPLM”
I knew food lovers want some factions agents to led the national anthem. Haaa, this how they always talk because their larger brain couldn,t be compare with the small one which has preferrable clues. We will select our leader Matip to help us or his civilians to create our national anthem. Thanks
Majak-da
Kiir should remove army officers from National Anthem Committee
This article could be a great one but the way this writer repeated himself and mess things gives another meaning altogether.
Don-Don Malith Rual
Kiir should remove army officers from National Anthem Committee By Mr. Don-Don M. De Rual Yath
COMMENT BY Don-Don M. De Rual Yath;
Dear Fellow Country Men and Women; We should learnt from other’s people Examples when its comes to things that are developmental to our great land for cush( Land of the black people) I am saying this because if that is how thing is being rule out, that is very wrong, anything to do with the whole sudan and in particular the sudan; need to be brought to the table debated by public and if possible it should be vote for with contribution from all the people off the sudan; irrepective of their ethnicity, culture, religious cultural differents backgrounds because, the sudan we want will and shall not be same with the Sudan we were, where the decision was monolgue; We need sudan where we all will be equal and free and fair; there4 my main argument is that when it comes to the naming of the National thing it need to be vote and when it is pass, that name will be existing and this is just an examples and other things are going to come up for instance; The code of Army; Our sybols as Sudanese, Our national Flag; other Sudan will become repulician or not and many other things that I have not mention. Just to mention fews; Let’s not be using the game of some playing cards when, you place some of the cards on the table and leave the dangerous one under the table! when it comes to the thing that are for the National’ By Mr. Don-Don John Malith Rual Yath; See how the Australian National Anthem was created in the pass and stop blaming our leaders; Show me a good leader and I will show you a good company, a good organisation and a good bussiness be not, Here is how Australian National Anthem was composed and do campared with what you are doing!!!!!!
National Anthem
‘Advance Australia Fair’ is the national anthem of Australia. A revised version of a late nineteenth century patriotic song, it was officially declared the national anthem on 19 April 1984.
The composer
Peter Dodds McCormick, a Scot, composed ‘Advance Australia Fair’ under the pen-name ‘Amicus’ (amicus is the Latin word for ‘friend’). It was first performed in Sydney on Saint Andrew’s Day, 1878. An amended version was also sung by a choir of 10,000 at the inauguration of the Commonwealth of Australia on 1 January, 1901. In 1907, the Australian Government awarded McCormick £100 for his composition. Peter McCormick died in 1916 and ‘Advance Australia Fair’ became free of copyright in 1966. The Commonwealth of Australia, however, does copyright the officially proclaimed lyrics and particular arrangements of music. Non-commercial public use of the anthem is permitted, but commercial use requires permission.
Some of the original words of the song have been changed for the official version. ‘Australia’s sons let us rejoice’ was the original first line; this has been replaced with ‘Australians all let us rejoice’. In the third verse of the original song, two lines were changed—‘To make our youthful Commonwealth’ became ‘To make this Commonwealth of ours’, and ‘For loyal sons beyond the seas’ became ‘For those who’ve come across the seas’.
How ‘Advance Australia Fair’ became the national anthem
The official anthem was ‘God Save the Queen’ (or ‘King’) from 1788 to 1974, although numerous commercial and official competitions were held over the years to find a substitute. The first was held in 1840.
John Dunmore Lang, who published an ‘Australian Anthem’ and an ‘Australian Hymn’ in 1826, was an early advocate of a distinctively Australian anthem. Carl Linger of South Australia wrote ‘The Song of Australia’ in 1860, and it was suggested to the Prime Minister in 1929 as a possible national anthem.
The issue of a truly national anthem was raised persistently before the 1956 Olympic Games, which were held in Melbourne. ‘Advance Australia Fair’ and ‘Waltzing Matilda’ were the two songs most strongly favoured then as the new anthem. ‘Waltzing Matilda’ was composed in 1895, with lyrics by one of Australia’s best known poets, AB ‘Banjo’ Paterson.
On Australia Day, 26 January, in 1972, the number of entries (more than 400) received in an Australia-wide national anthem quest gave an indication of the interest in a new anthem.
Exactly a year later a government-sponsored competition was announced, which drew 2500 entries for the words and 1300 for the music. The judges selected six entries for the words, but rejected all the musical entries.
The polls and what followed
The quest for an Australian national anthem continued. In 1974 a public opinion poll sampled an estimated 60 000 people to select from three possible anthems: ‘Advance Australia Fair’, ‘Waltzing Matilda’ and ‘Song of Australia’. ‘Advance Australia Fair’ polled 51.4 per cent. Following this result the then Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, announced that ‘Advance Australia Fair’ would be the national anthem, except on specifically Royal occasions, when both it and ‘God Save the Queen’ would be played.
In 1976, after a change of government, ‘God Save the Queen’ was reinstated for Royal, vice-regal, defence and loyal toast occasions, with ‘Advance Australia Fair’ to be played on all other official occasions.
In May 1977, however, a national poll was conducted to ascertain the public choice of a national song. This time more than seven million people were issued with ballot papers. The results were: ‘Advance Australia Fair’ 43.2 per cent, ‘Waltzing Matilda’ 28.3 per cent, ‘God Save the Queen’ 18.7 per cent and ‘Song of Australia’ 9.6 per cent. Despite the poll results, adoption of the new national anthem met widespread opposition.
It was not until April 1984 that the Governor-General issued a proclamation that ‘God Save the Queen’ was designated the Royal Anthem, to be played at public engagements in Australia attended by the members of the Royal family. ‘Advance Australia Fair’ was finally declared to be the Australian national anthem.
Usually ‘God Save the Queen’ is played at the start of Royal functions and ‘Advance Australia Fair’ at the end, unless it is more appropriate to play both anthems at the start. ‘Advance Australia Fair’ is played at all other official functions.
ADVANCE AUSTRALIA FAIR
Australians all let us rejoice,
For we are young and free;
We’ve golden soil and wealth for toil;
Our home is girt by sea;
Our land abounds in nature’s gifts
Of beauty rich and rare;
In history’s page, let every stage
Advance Australia Fair.
In joyful strains then let us sing,
Advance Australia Fair.
Beneath our radiant Southern Cross
We’ll toil with hearts and hands;
To make this Commonwealth of ours
Renowned of all the lands;
For those who’ve come across the seas
We’ve boundless plains to share;
With courage let us all combine
To Advance Australia Fair.
In joyful strains then let us sing,
Advance Australia Fair.
Complied by Mr. Don-Don John Malith Rual;
4 Contact You can reach me on [email protected]
or http://www.murdoch.edu.au
James Okuk Solomon
Kiir should remove army officers from National Anthem Committee
Dear All,
With due respect to the South Sudan separatists’ hard-liners, let me acknowledge that they have a genuine fear because anything that could affect the realization of the independence of South Sudan, even by short cut, is a greater evil that should never be tolerated by any chance. The same applies to the unionists’ hard-liners too who think that separation of South Sudan from the larger unified Sudan is the greatest evil that should never be tolerated. Surely both of those extremes positions are recipe for war if common ground is created. But who is in the best position to come out victorious from the war? Unionists or separatists? From my reading there is none of either.
If you read article 2.6 of the the CPA together with article 3.1.5, you can see that both partners have been allowed to extend the validity of the CPA but not violating it. These articles have been applied several times in the past: from the delay of the formation of the CPA government, to the delay of re-deployment of the SPLA and SAF, to the delay of the conduct of the Census, and to the delay of the the mid-term general elections, etc.
So what is funny now not to apply the same wisdom to the referendum for Southern Sudan self-determination. After all, this referendum is not an end in itself but a means to something more dignified or more disgracified, depending on the lenses someone uses (unity or separation).
Let’s be realistic and practically strategic as we weigh toleration of lesser evil compared to the total lost of the greater good. It is known that war is the easiest thing to go for but what comes next after the war is the most difficult one to cope with.
The Southerners and SPLM/A have fought the lions and they should know know what fighting it means. It is time to be wise and smarter than the enemy now! Give him/her time now to shut his/her mouth next time. Meanwhile try to be more serious and extremely pre-emptive for the next step after the first and second chance granted. My take.