Somebody should listen to the voices of South Sudanese

By Steve Paterno

November 18, 2010 — The out of country South Sudan referendum registration process in USA starts in shambles. The South Sudanese communities from across the USA vowed to boycott the process, citing among other things, lack of transparency, inadequate polling centers, and insufficient voter information and outreach programs. This actually resulted into a one day moratorium of the registration process, followed by a lot of confusions, since the Southern Sudan Referendum Commission (SSRC) was trying to sort out how best to resolve the issues facing potential eligible referendum voters in the USA.

The USA is critical in the overall South Sudan referendum process, because the country hosts a sizable number of South Sudanese population. The South Sudanese in the USA are not your typical immigrants. They are the refugees, but yet, not the regular refugees. These are people who have not known peace in their entire lifetime. They are traumatized by decades of wars, discrimination, and injustice. A slight act of injustice perpetuated against them can ominously trigger their traumatic experience.

The out of country South Sudan referendum in the USA is suppose to benefit South Sudanese, and yet, they are feeling that they are not riping the benefits as it is witnessed by the confusions and complaints. In such volatile situation, perceptions and expressed sentiments must seriously require due considerations by anyone who is concerned. For example, South Sudanese strongly believe that the Northern Sudanese through the National Congress Party (NCP) and the allies are working days and nights to sabotage the rights of South Sudanese for self determination. They think that the SSRC is the tool of NCP, subject to manipulation. To the South Sudanese, the International Organization for Migration (IOM), an agency working on behalf of SSRC to manage the referendum in Diaspora is viewed to be in league with the Arab world; paid to foul the aspirations of South Sudanese.

Before one can debate the authenticity of such perceptions as to whether they are real or imagined, it is important to first understand the context in which these perceptions become prevailing sentiments among the South Sudanese. The slow or lack of the implementation of the Sudan’s peace agreement is seen as the responsibility of the NCP. Much is expected of NCP to honor the agreement and implement its provisions in timely manner. Actually, the slow implementation of the CPA is largely to do with the current mess, affecting the referendum process. The South Sudan Referendum Act was enacted into law after many delays and disagreements. The SSRC, tasked with managing the referendum was formed too late than expected, heightening the fear on whether it will manage the process within the time span stipulated. Added to this already heightening fear is the composition of the members of SSRC, where the key positions in the commission are under the control of Northern Sudanese. The rigid operational procedures of IOM, compounded by lack of experience in dealing with South Sudanese also added into the problems.

Therefore, it is in this context that the perceptions and sentiments of South Sudanese in this referendum process is reinforced. The South Sudanese are the real victims in this established atmosphere, where the issue of trust is front and center—trust is only displayed to them in short supply. It is up to those tasked with the responsibility to ensure that the South Sudanese benefit from the process rather than ignoring their complaints and expressed sentiments. It is also up to those tasked with responsibility to work hard to suppress the negative perceptions and sentiments the South Sudanese developed. Through the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), members of NCP and their allies have opportunities to act in ways that they could gain the trust of South Sudanese people. The same applies to the SSRC that it can also play a pivotal role to legitimize itself in the eyes of South Sudanese people. For example, the SSRC should not use logistics as an excuse for depriving potential voters in places like the USA, with a vast land mass and spread out population. Since the inception of Sudan, South Sudanese never enjoyed the wealth of the country and this will be about the only time if the SSRC can invest in the process of referendum for the Southerners to benefit. The IOM should not be proving itself that it is incapable in managing the task that it signed to perform. Instead of fearing that its staff will be overwhelmed by creation of more centers and the flow of South Sudanese population in USA, it should rather embrace such a challenge as a matter of its obligation. After all, IOM is an international organization and should have the capacity to carry the task to the satisfaction of the beneficiaries—the South Sudanese, than worrying about the amount of work its staff will be subjected to perform. Somebody must understand where the South Sudanese are coming from and where they are heading, in order to deal with them.

Steve Paterno is the author of The Rev. Fr. Saturnino Lohure, A Romain Catholic Priest Turned Rebel. He can be reached at [email protected]