A federal system is most appropriate for South Sudan
By Jacob K. Lupai
April 23, 2011 — To begin with power and resources have been disproportionately concentrated at the centre to the obvious disadvantage to development in the states. A federal system is the most appropriate for development in the states for people to have a chance of a high standard of living as a peace dividend for the sacrifices made during the liberation struggle. For the most ignorant and pretentious intellectuals a federal system is not a discrimination against a tribe but objectively a system of promoting unity in diversity and in accelerating socio-economic development for people to enjoy a good life. This, however, will not restrict the movement and residence of people whenever they choose to live anywhere in South Sudan as the constitution may guarantee.
A federal system is one that shares the powers of government between the centre (federal) and state governments. Each level of government has specific powers and both levels have their own agencies and officials. In a federal system a nation has the flexibility to accommodate economic and cultural differences which correlate significantly with geography. States laws in a federal system can be adapted to local conditions in a way that is difficult to achieve through a national government. By these characteristics of a federal system overall satisfaction can be maximized in promoting unity in diversity. It can be asserted that a federal system is more democratic than a unitary system because there are more levels of government for public opinion to affect.
A federal system of government is appropriate for the Republic of South Sudan and the sooner the better. However, there will be skeptics especially those who are living in the past. In 1981 Equatoria as a province agitated for a decentralized system of government in South Sudan. This was not received kindly by the other southern provinces of Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile which only seemed to aspire to produce rulers not leaders. Nonetheless the decentralisation of South Sudan went ahead. South Sudan was decentralized into three autonomous regions of Equatoria, Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile. This was received not only with anger but animosity where Equatorians were to suffer needlessly and even today Equatorians are still held in contempt. The decentralization of South Sudan then became derogatorily known as Kokora (division) and this was used to stigmastised Equatorians as less nationalists.
As time passed Equatorians were exonerated when the three southern regions of Equatoria, Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile were themselves further decentralized into a total of ten states. Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile which were at first very bitter with Equatoria for Kokora were themselves decentralised into 4 and 3 states respectively. Now why aren’t the people of Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile bitter with each other for what is exactly Kokora in their midst. Decentralisation or what others would like to refer to as Kokora is now a fact of life in South 8udan. There may be more states created. Shall we call it decentralization or Kokora?
Support for a federal system of government is greater than ever before. The federal system of government has an important role in keeping the peace and preventing national fragmentation. If North Sudan had accepted the southern demand for a federal system of government in Sudan, probably South Sudan would not have fought bitter wars for separation and ultimately independence. In a federation there is tolerance for diversity and this has the further advantage of preventing the national government from being forced to take sides on matters that may be of purely regional concern. Decentralised governments make better decisions than centralized ones and state governments can be more closely supervised because of lower monitoring costs. Citizens can also exercise more effective control over state government officials when everything is on a small scale. Centralised governments encourage wasteful lobbying by interest groups engaged in the pursuit of ethnic group benefits or privileges at the expense of development at the grassroots.
It can be asserted that federations are exceptionally stable. Of the five countries that survived the 20th century without a violent change of government, four are federations and they are the United States of America, Canada, Australia and Switzerland. The unitary United Kingdom is slowly disintegrating. In 1921 Ireland seceded to become the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland as part of the unitary United Kingdom fought a civil war for 30 years. A Scottish separatism was partly satisfied by 1998 federal arrangement known as devolution scheme. Adopted in time, a federal system might have saved the United Kingdom. Sudan is disintegrating as the South is already breaking away because of the failure to adopt a federal system in time when it was demanded. This should be a good lesson to the Republic of South Sudan.
What is not realized of a federal system is the value of competition among the states as a means of enhancing the international competitiveness of the nation as a whole. An awareness of the positive benefits of a federal system will make a constitutional debate a more fruitful one. For the Republic of South Sudan the adoption of a federal system is appropriate. This is because there is a high concentration of power and resources at the centre to the disadvantage of states. Almost the same government structures at the centre are duplicated at the state level. The centre assumes the role of implementer of projects in the state while in fact it should have been the responsibility of the state. Central structures should have been skeletal with most staff deployed under the state governments. The states should be empowered and resourced for self-reliance instead of handouts from the centre.
A federal system will accelerate development. The centralised system of government under the comprehensive peace agreement (CPA) has shown that a federal system is preferable. For the last six years of the interim period no running clean drinking water system has been developed. Health services, sanitation, security to mention but a few all have not been guaranteed. Infrastructures have not been developed as expected. This goes to confirm that only a federal system where the states are empowered and resourced can basic services to the people be delivered.
In conclusion, where resources and power have been concentrated at the centre and with a high level of corruption development is slow to pick up. The experience of the 6-year interim period from 2005 to 2011 confirms that a federal system is appropriate for the Republic of South Sudan. Those who are not secure will always be up in arms against a federal system. However, revolutionaries with a vision of development of the Republic of South Sudan will have no problem with a federal system of government. Only the corrupt who hate any system of accountability will sabotage the adoption of federation. For the hardworking that are genuinely keen on rapid development of their states there is no way except the adoption of a federal system for the Republic of South Sudan with minimum delay.
The author can be reached at [email protected]
Nhomlawda
A federal system is most appropriate for South Sudan
Federalism is a good form of governance in emerging or developed economies where states/regions have enormous resources and not depending solely on federal resources and where nationalism is strong but not in a country like South Sudan where national identity does not even exist. We are just bunches of tribes with bitter memories against each other at all levels. South Sudan will hardly progress in a decentralized system of governance. Federalism brings those bitter tribal memories to the local level and the problems of tribalism get deeper and deeper even at county levels. E.g. recent chaos between Mundari and Bari and some tribes within Lainya County are ideal cases of localized tribalism as a result of decentralization problems in South Sudan.
We need to develop nationalism first in a centralized South Sudan before implementing federalism. It is high time states system be abolished and revives after 100 years when education and nationalism would have taken root in South Sudan.
Bol Deng
A federal system is most appropriate for South Sudan
Democratic system is the best dear Jacob. The south Sudanese will compete on the candidacy base on the qualifications in which the candidate will by vote into the office.
Federal system is a divide system in which power need to be divided among the states. Federal system is not appropriate in the South Sudan because the South Sudanese want the system that will unite them instead of federal system that will further divide them base on location or regional tribes.
If you do not know then let me tell you that these regional locations are predominantly occupied base on tribe and these suggestion would be a major problems because this will promote more aggression on others because people will see themselves as distinct.
Please, the Equatorians should take time to think about their suggestions. they all thing that everything need to be divided even the SPLA. SPLA is a regular army which took up arms against the Khartoum voluntarily while they rest were hidding mostly equatorians during the war.
This country was not divide during the war other the entire equatoria would be the breeding areas for Jallaba because their would be nobody who can react to Jallab for sure.
Garang
A federal system is most appropriate for South Sudan
“As time passed Equatorians were exonerated when the three southern regions of Equatoria, Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile were themselves further decentralized into a total of ten states. Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile which were at first very bitter with Equatoria for Kokora were themselves decentralised into 4 and 3 states respectively. Now why aren’t the people of Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile bitter with each other for what is exactly Kokora in their midst. Decentralisation or what others would like to refer to as Kokora is now a fact of life in South 8udan. There may be more states created. Shall we call it decentralization or Kokora?”
But Mr.Kwaje Lupai, who did that further decentralization? Is it not the same Jallaba who has been working to further divide the people of Southern Sudan? Are you not observing the impacts of that division of early 1980s and that of 1990s on the two young generations born within those periods and happened to remain in the governmnet control areas in the South? Just conduct a reasch on that and come out with an article. Those who took refuge to other countries or to the Northern Sudan are a bit bitter becuse they found themselves in communities of different tribes of Southern Sudan and went to the same schools, etc. So as said by Nholawda, we need to give time and energy to reuniting minds and hearts of our people so that they look at themselnes as one nation whose interest is achieved by sharing one natural and man made resources regardless of which state has more wealth than others.The Republic of South Sudan needs alot of work in terms of human dvelopment, that is concentrating on quality education, capacity building and healing war traumatized. Let us keep current states but with diassociating ourselves from the notion of giving the running of each state,s affair to its sons. Civil servants and the organized forces should be deployed from a state to the other in order to create sense of unity in diversity.
jur_likang_a_ likan'g
A federal system is most appropriate for South Sudan
I fervently believe there could be a hidden agenda for those who insist that South Sudan should be governed on the basis of unitary system. They are wrong to reject a new favourable system of federal governance that can cement the unity of South Sudan state for ever.
Unless these people are in or from a different planet and lack political vision, then they can claim federalism or decentralization of administration is a recipe for division of South Sudan society. South Sudan is a multi-tribal, multi-culticural, multi-occupational society that necessitate federal system of government where the resources of the nation are distributed evenly and fairly for even development. It is not about dividing people but about taking services close to the people where local expertise can be used to harness development.
Unity of the state can only come about with vices that encourage togetherness by doing what is right to the society. Avoid nepotism, tribalism, corruption and render social services to the man on the road plus introducing civic education in all levels of our schools can just do that. Our history should not be dishoured but taken on board seriously.
Looking back in our history where we came from it is evident that unitary system of governance in Sudan brought about the six decade war that South went through. We should therefore not attempt to go that path again for reasons experienced by our people. It is also a lie and cover for selfishness to claim Equatorians hid when those who claim to be their liberators were busy setting them free from Jallaba rule. This statement is from idiots who do not know the history of Sudan especially the liberation of South Sudan. They do not know how the war came about. The plan for this war started with a tribal nucleus in Khartoum-Wad Seina. In early 80s Dinka officers in the army worked alone to rebel and what followed then for those who know ask where the likes of Col. Martin Kajivora and many others from Equatoria are. Even the patriotic Nuer Soldiers who actually practically started the war of liberation were eliminated. So this was the genesis of SPLM. Hovewer having said that I personally have close relatives in this movement since early 80s but a low level of ranks that do not encourage their elimination. This is so because South can only liberate itself not by fighting itself but Jallaba. The strategy of the rebels was to rid the rebellion of any prominent Equatorian Officers. In the battle fields, many Equatorians soldiers were fired upon by their colleaques as well as from the Jallaba soldiers that sharply reduced their number in their campaign in freedom fighting. What happened when those of Jadalla and Cirrillo joined, town after town fell to the hands of SPLA like mad. Try to find the contribution of Abraham, Obutu and many others, then you can say those silly things.
What these people should know no country is built on the foundation of discrimination. The view of the people minority or majority must be taken on board because they belong to the nation. To say unitary system is right for the sake of promotion of corruption, nepotism, and tribalism will not serve you good. When over million people demand a political solution to a problem please lend your ears otherwise it might out to be to late.
Now there peace all tenets of freedom should come to the land and the rights of the people must be respected. Equatoria Conference said it all. Those who have ears must have listened and know what the impact of not listening to its resolution can be.
LL Reuben
A federal system is most appropriate for South Sudan
Jur-Lia’kang,
You’ve alluded to points that you didn’t clearly elaborated precisely, making your writing confusing all together.
Federalism is not suitable when it comes to South Sudan simply because of effects that are pointed out above by Nhomlawda.
Until we rid ourselves from the practices that you think can plead the backing of federalism in South Sudan, instead the better alternative is a system that will first nourished our people with democratic principles then a wished system can then be introduced by any adventurous coalition who wish to try new things for the sake of trying new things.
Take for instance; settlements of Dinka communities over various Equatorian towns are facing menaces from those who called themselves Equatorian ( not Southerners apparently), and accusing the Dinkas of taking their land; don’t you think a federal system at the state level can add more fire to this sort of locals’ behavior.
The likelihood of your coalition preaching to the population that Equotoria is under the Equatorian authority, would triggered the nation that folks who are not originally from that land don’t have a legitimate right to settle there because they have their rightful land. If this is what is driving you people mad then how about the blood of Dinkas and other Southerners that have filled the beneath surface of your land? And by the way those souls didn’t know that they were non-Equatoria, and yes our Hero Garang was right not to let them know.
You’ve talked about the contribution of Equatorian commanders during the struggle, and I have no dispute whatsoever. I respect the people you’ve mentioned, there contribution was significant but does not need to be hyperbolized because I know Mamur Mete (Obutu) in person as well as his division Wulek when they were deployed in between Juba-Terekeka and Magalla in the late 80s to early 90s. I know how effective Wulek was and which tribe they were mostly from.
jur_likang_a_ likan'g
A federal system is most appropriate for South Sudan
Brother LL Reuben,
My article is crystal clear and you understood it well but want to distort what it bears. I believe you are intellectually sound to the extent that you know federalism is not about the division of people of the same nation but it is an administrative convenience of sharing political power to promote socio-economic development of the country equitely. I also believe in as much Dinka blood was spilled in any part of South Sudan much blood from other communities paid for what is now called GOSS in Juba and its institutions deserve to be evenly distributed. This 1983 war was only a second phase of the war that began in 1955. It should not be a war that creates discrimination, corruption, tribalism and nepotism in a grand style.
Federalism is working well in Nigeria, USA, Australia and many other countries where there is diversity with a great success in development of both human and natural resources. In these countries citizens live wherever they find suitable to do so but within the parameters of the law of the state. You do not need to grab lands of other people illegally and claim you fought for the land that has a rightful owner. Here what are we trying to show? Where is Justice and equality that we claimed to have been fighting for? I think the war was not for replacing a master with another master whatever colour he might have. Additionally there is no point for people to leave their areas of origin in a peaceful time if they have no national duty to make them to be where they want to be. This is especially bad when the communities are a mixture of pastoralists and sedentary farmers whose source of livelihood is the farm they depend on. We have large land that such a thing should not happen if we really want to live harmoniously. People can live where they were born to avoid trouble. Only those with work in different places of origin can do so. Every South Sudanese tribe has a place he calls home. It is pointless to fight for something that is hollow as if we want to be occupying force. The people of South Sudan are not nomads who do not know where they belong.
However national unity can be built on justice, equality and freedom void of nepotism, tribalism and corruption. We should always honour public responsibility for the welfare of the general society to which we belong but not the tribe we come from. I hope this has answered your query. All what the people are asking for is let what belongs to state belong to the state and not to individuals who found out by sheer luck in a position of trust become thieves who do not respect a public property. You can now see now that trouble is now starting to appear. We must avoid such incidents by doing good to the public.
Abunyalama
A federal system is most appropriate for South Sudan
Thanks Jurlikang for responding to these mother fuckers.I call them motherfuckers because they have a retarded mind,which is caused probably because of their cultural up-bringing back in their remote States. Instead of getting the points you mentioned,he was trying to show that he knows better English than you;yet not,as I can see from his writing.
My advice to you Dinka is this; You better choose to listen at once,or seek for help if your mind is already dumb to understand some important national issues;otherwise,you will see that this South Sudan will be on Fire.Don’t think Equatorians don’t know how to fight,but they fight when there is a need and as a last resort. Equatorians are trying to help anarchy in South Sudan by instituting a better form of government,but you people are complaining.
First of all,you Dinkas don’t know how to rule people;so Equatorians are bringing a type of government that will correct this madness of yours and bring South Sudan to stability–just as as other countries like USA,Nigeria,etc,where tribalism and nepotism are the order of the day. Equatorians are saying follow rules and respect people in their States,but you choose not to;and that’s why we call you Dinkas mad,crazy,or barbarian people who have no ethics of humanity. You have done lots of crazy things in South Sudan that make Equatorians unhappy:stealing people’s property such as land by force,using your positions;corruption(taking government money abroad,and yet not punished),and many more.
People like James Okuk,who only know about their interests, are now shaking because of the Equatorian conference.This conference is a WARNING TO YOU.EVERY MADNESS HAS IT MADNESS.YOU EITHER LISTEN OR YOU WILL FACE IT AND YOU WILL REGRET IT.
Paul Ongee
A federal system is most appropriate for South Sudan
Brother Jacob K. Lupai,
Before I quote you, this article is completely out of context in terms of defining Kokora, decentralization or redivision of 1983 and immediate adoption of federal system after July 9, 2011.
“As time passed Equatorians were exonerated when the three southern regions of Equatoria, Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile were themselves further decentralized into a total of ten states. Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile which were at first very bitter with Equatoria for Kokora were themselves decentralized into 4 and 3 states respectively. Now why aren’t the people of Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile bitter with each other for what is exactly Kokora in their midst. Decentralization or what others would like to refer to as Kokora is now a fact of life in South Sudan.”
Whether Kokora was defined as “redivision or decentralization” under Nimeiri-led government in Khartoum, it was not intended for “decentralized” development you’re trying to advocate here in your article. It was designed to weaken Southerners politically because some Southern politicians like the late Agrey Jaden or William Deng were surfacing and giving headache to Khartoum about the pursuit of self-determination.
If Khartoum didn’t develop South since 1956 how can Khartoum or we (southerners) expect to develop our individual provinces in the wake of Kokora? How can you answer this question, please? Why do you support Khartoum’s idea of “divide and rule” or blind southern politicians of those days who advocated for redivision/Kokora to take place as if miracles would happen to deliver speedy development in the three Southern provinces? Southern politicians were not on their own and had limited political freedom, little or no power in decision-making at the national level to develop South Sudan. Every developmental project intended to benefit South Sudan has to come from or be approved first by Khartoum even if the civil war of 1983 were not waged.
The redivision or Kokora was simply intended to “divide and rule” with respect to implementation of Sharia law. Sharia law is intended to speed up Islamization and Arabization in the three provinces. The strategic war of 1983 was waged to pursue equality, progress and justice for all or self-determination at the end of the day. The war was strategically different from the one of Anya-nya One or two.
Now on July 9, 2011 we gonna be in charge of our own affairs and we already know what system of government is better or best for us. The current system is less federal but we might over time fully adopt the federal system. First we need to lay down all the government-related institutions and build capacity at every level from top to bottom or vice versa (Goss, State, County, Payam and Boma).
Paul Ongee
Khartoum Watch
Paul Ongee
A federal system is most appropriate for South Sudan
Brother Jacob K. Lupai,
Before I quote you, this article is completely out of context in terms of defining Kokora, decentralization or redivision of 1983 and immediate adoption of federal system after July 9, 2011.
“As time passed Equatorians were exonerated when the three southern regions of Equatoria, Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile were themselves further decentralized into a total of ten states. Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile which were at first very bitter with Equatoria for Kokora were themselves decentralized into 4 and 3 states respectively. Now why aren’t the people of Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile bitter with each other for what is exactly Kokora in their midst. Decentralization or what others would like to refer to as Kokora is now a fact of life in South Sudan.”
Whether Kokora was defined as “redivision or decentralization” under Nimeiri-led government in Khartoum, it was not intended for “decentralized” development you’re trying to advocate here in your article. It was designed to weaken Southerners politically because some Southern politicians like the late Agrey Jaden or William Deng were surfacing and giving headache to Khartoum about the pursuit of self-determination.
If Khartoum didn’t develop South since 1956 how can Khartoum or we (southerners) expect to develop our individual provinces in the wake of Kokora? How can you answer this question, please? Why do you support Khartoum’s idea of “divide and rule” or blind southern politicians of those days who advocated for redivision/Kokora to take place as if miracles would happen to deliver speedy development in the three Southern provinces? Southern politicians were not on their own and had limited political freedom, little or no power in decision-making at the national level to develop South Sudan. Every developmental project intended to benefit South Sudan has to come from or be approved first by Khartoum even if the civil war of 1983 were not waged.
The redivision or Kokora was simply intended to “divide and rule” with respect to implementation of Sharia law. Sharia law is intended to speed up Islamization and Arabization in the three provinces. The strategic war of 1983 was waged to pursue equality, progress and justice for all or self-determination at the end of the day. It was strategically different from the one of Anya-nya One or two. Dr. John Garang was confident about his strategy to achieve either objective although short-sighted and visionless southern intellectuals started opposing him from day one.
Now on July 9, 2011 we gonna be in charge of our own affairs and we already know what system of government is better or best for us. The current system is less federal but we might over time fully adopt the federal system. First we need to lay down all the government-related institutions and build capacity at every level from top to bottom or vice versa (Goss, State, County, Payam and Boma).
Paul Ongee
Khartoum Watch
jur_likang_a_ likan'g
A federal system is most appropriate for South Sudan
Brother O’ngee,
Your output to Lupai’s story is correct. However I believe there is a need to go further and ask why some people liked this sad thing called Kokora then? I believe it was not good then and it is not good now. However some people thought that would answer their question for a prosperous South Sudan. Of course they were wrong. But we can not rule out that the leadership in Juba was the cause of all this political dirt. They were to blame for that. Now that we are in a different political era we fervently need a federal system of governance. Federalism should or never be equated with Kokora because Kokora is actually pseudo-decentralization of power. It was actually another form of indirect rule of South Sudan by Jallaba.
The other side of Kokora story was good then. It strategically made Southerners who ruled South Sudan see clearly that the political power which they were abusing did not actually belong to them. It ultimately drove corrupt Juba politicians and many other Southerners to the bushes to fight for the freedom of South Sudan whose result we are now seeing. Strategically it answered the question of liberating South Sudan from an evil hand of Jallaba.
However one sad thing is these politicians hardly reformed. They came back to Juba with those evil vices which is agitating Southerners to protest with a devastating result because what they died for is not being implemented. But as time go on things might rectify. So Kokora played a role in preparing Southerners to demand for their freedom in a grand style.