Southern Sudanese have crossed the Tribal Lines

By Maker Mabor Marial

September 10, 2010 — As the 2011 Southern Sudan and Abyei referenda is barely four months away, many unionists, local and international alike, fear tribal conflicts among southerners as a dividing factor that will ultimately lead the south into disintegration and create a situation of tribal anarchy in the break away south. The recent of these kinds is from Rhonda Shafei, a Columbia College Junior majoring in history. She is an executive board member of the Columbia International Relations Council and Association and the secretary general of the 2011 Columbia Model United Nations Conference and Exposition. Her reaction was in response to Hillary Clinton’s recent call for faithful and timely conduct of Referenda, in a metaphor in which she termed the Sudan as a “ticking time-bomb”.

In her Thursday September 9, 2010 article published by Columbia Spectator, titled, A separation Sudan or a new consolidation plan, Shafei argued that Sudan should remain united because of southern Sudan being made up of different tribes with different political ideology. According to her, Southern Sudan is rift with diverse tribes of varying political interests. Southern Sudan has already seen internal feuds among its tribes…if the south secedes, a Dinka, Kiir, will become president of the newly independent state, infuriating other tribes seeking their own autonomy. Secession will open the door to all the nationalist aspirations of all the south’s tribes, she added.

In fact, South Sudan has hundreds of tribes of whom some of them might have conflicts amongst themselves but that does not translate each tribe seeking its own independence country when they have political differences in the independence south to be. Tribes in southern Sudan most of the times fight over cattle rustling than politically motivated feuds. The act of cattle rustling is an ancient practice and for that reason even group of the same clan can fight over cattle raiding. It is still being practiced in the U.S., State of Taxes and many countries in the world.

If there were any tribal feuds amongst the tribes in the south, then the Arabs must have orchestrated them. The Islamic fanatics in the north engineer most of the tribal conflicts in southern Sudan through their agenda of divided and ruled. Such as, in 1990s the Dinka and Nuer tribes fought a deadly war which resulted in the massive killings of the innocent people from both sides. The regime in Khartoum played a greater role in supporting the SPLM-Nasir faction in its unsuccessful attempts to annihilate the Dinka tribe and tear down the SPLA/M.

Shafei in her argument also claimed that President Kiir has been silencing his political opponents in Southern Sudan, accordingly she wrote, there is no indication that the situation of Southern Sudan would improve under Kiir’s rule. Numerous allegations have been made against Kiir for stifling and silencing opposition parties in the south, she stated.

In this statement, Shafer’s claim is unfounded; under Kiir’s leadership Southern Sudan has been praised by many from the international community as a place where the citizens have political broadmindedness amongst themselves compared to many countries in the world that have just emerged from civil wars like Southern Sudan. For instance, during the April’s elections all the oppositions in Southern Sudan including Al Bashir himself were allowed to conduct campaigns free of intimidation compared to the north where oppositions were restricted from carrying out their political activities. On the one hand, the media in the Southern Sudan has been free from censorship since the establishment of the Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS) in 2005 compared to the north where media censorship has been a daily thing. Furthermore, there are no political dissidents who have been arrested or lost their lives in Southern Sudan just because they were oppositions but in the north political dissident are arrested most of the times.

Southern Sudan is the last place in the world where a dictator can survive, Southern Sudanese love to be respected by their leaders and if their leaders want to abuse them they can take matter into their hand in a broad day light and end that dictatorial authority. Therefore, there has been no such a thing of silencing oppositions in Southern Sudan as Shafei had claimed.

For this reason, President Kiir deserves appreciation for bringing the true democratic government to Southern Sudan. Under his leadership, Southern Sudanese are free to criticize their government and leaders openly without being arrested. Of course, there might have been some occurrences where citizens are bused by soldiers or government officials but that does not mean that Kiir is using his powers to suppress his political opponents. These kinds of incidents can happen in any country in the world but are corrected by law. Politically South Sudan is much better than any other country in Africa; it’s in the right tract democratically.

Southern Sudanese are the most tolerant people in the whole of Africa; they forget about their grievances easily and forgive each other. This kind of forbearing has been used by President Kiir to bring on board all those who were once enemies under his leadership as a team of brothers and sisters working side by side to bring about the common good for the people of Southern Sudan.

The success of the April elections in which 93% of voters voted for Kiir as Southern Sudan’s President exemplifies the maturity of Southern Sudanese in regards to tribes. Dr. Lam Akol, the SPLM-DC candidate and the only one who ran against Kiir in the April’s elections was from Shilluk tribe, but many of his tribe men didn’t vote for him because he was a Shilluk.

So, the majority of voters in the April’s elections in Southern Sudan were from other tribes and they voted for Kiir knowing him as Dinka. I don’t see any point justifying Shafei’s claim that many tribes in Southern Sudan would be upset when Southern Sudan becomes independent and Kiir becomes its president. If Southern Sudanese were making their choice for president based on tribes, I believe Kiir and Lam would have not been the only candidates; each tribe would have had its candidate for president. The Dinka tribe only represents 10% of the populations in the south while 90% of the population is made up by other tribes. Accordingly, Kiir is in the power because Southern Sudan citizens have agreed to put him there, and not because he was a Dinka.

Coming to his administration, Kiir has established the most inclusive government in the history of the Sudan. He has chosen his cabinet wisely, and ensured that his cabinet is diversified. This can be proven by the absent of the criticism since Kiir established his administration a few months ago. Thus, no single southern Sudanese have ever complained about being marginalized or under represented in his administration.

Additionally, Shafei proposed, in order to avoid further strife in the south, the U.S. should promote the consolidation of Sudan over its separation and begin stressing the importance of given every Sudanese citizen the right to vote and achieve representation.” What Shafei does not know is that Southern Sudanese are more united at the moment then ever before. They are more united as it was in the 1970s before the Nimeiri’s regime came up with what became popularly known as “kokoro,” which means separation in Bari language. In this policy, Southern Sudan was divided into three regions, Bhar Al Ghazal, Equotoria and Upper Nile. People in each region were to live and work in their regions.

The Islamists in the north that time saw the unity of Southerners as threat to their agenda of Islamic ideology in the whole of the Sudan, and therefore came up with this policy to set southerners against each other. Going through the pain of Arab induced segregations, Southerners have learnt a lot, and now see themselves more as brothers and sisters.

Shafei also emphasized that “SPLM, led by Salva Kiir, has staunchly opposed reconciliation with the north.” But, what she forgets is that the SPLM has been trying for five and half years to work with the Islamists in the north in hope to bring about peace and reconciliation in the country but the Islamists led regime could not cooperate. Instead, the regime in Khartoum has been trying to stir up violence in the south through their known practice of militia sponsorships which has resulted in many innocent lives being lost in the south.

As a matter of fact, the SPLM had tried hard to make Sudan a secular state where religion should be made separate from the governance, and the government transformed into more democratic. In addition, the SPLM wanted the regime to make an honest peace with the Darfur rebels but the Islamists have rejected all the requested reforms.

So, the Khartoum Islamists have chosen their own destiny of keeping north as Arab Islamic Republic governed under the Sharia. It’s in the Islamists’ desire for Southern Sudanese to go and leave them to establish their own kind of Taliban Government in the north.

Southerners on the other hand, after failing to convince the north that being just “Sudanese” is better than being Arabs, Islamists, Christians or animists are left with no choice but to seek their own country that will be free of the Arab culture and Sharia law. Their tribal linkage will not divide them as many unionists claim but create diversity in their prosperous south.

The author is the Sudanese, and lives in the United States. He can be reached at [email protected].