Has the battle to save Garang legacy revived SPLA 1991 ideological differences?

By Isaiah Abraham

October 20, 2011 — On 28 August 1991, the Sudan People’s LiberationArmy/Movement split into two factions, one led by Dr. Riek Machar Teny, the current vice president of our Republic. The other faction was led by the late Dr. John Garang de Mabior. The former was to be known as Nasir Faction and the latter as Torit Faction. The Nasir Group proclaimed large territory in the Greater Upper, whilst the Torit faction had its presence across other regions of Equatoria and Bahr El Ghazal. There were factional and fraternity fights, displacements and deaths; events politicians in Khartoum used to weaken the liberation struggle for the people of Southern Sudan. It was a difficult episode in our contemporary history.

Nasir Faction made their ideological positions very clear on issues to do with the objective cause of the liberation struggle, human rights problems within the movement, and the internal managerial style under Dr. John Garang. The group questioned the ‘new Sudan vision,’ and they gave reasons why it is unattainable. To them there is no way southerners should shy away from declaring their intention of fighting for the South and about the South. Concerning human rights the group thought it would be wise to respect human dignity and allow people space to speak up and criticize anything that is not in place. Over leadership, they thought Garang was overwhelmed doing everything, and this could wear him out. At least that is what is on the minds of most.

We don’t have time here however, to dissect these claims, and to discuss whether the rebellious men leaders of Nasir were serious or not, but one thing is clear, and that is, the Nasir Faction architects made a fatal mistake to declare war against their own people immediately after the movement lost its political and military base in Ethiopia, and at a time when Juba was marked out to be ‘smoked.’ Instead of fighting Khartoum, with whom we had fundamental cause to, we were pursuing. Our brothers there turned their ammunition against their own brothers and sisters on the front line fighting Arabs. There are incentives though, through Nasir’s political tragedy, in that we were able to look inwardly into our house and make some corrections. Yet consequences of SPLA split are still fresh and visible. One of which is this debate over who should be the father of the nation, a front that has been sharpened by diasporas.

One man made a comment few weeks ago on the same topic, challenging the legacy of Dr. John Garang de Mabior; he made a spirited defense of his position, even in his second letter published a couple of nights ago. Readers are familiar with what others have said in response; those against and others in support of the challenge. This author had also attempted to ‘hush’ that author on the grounds that it doesn’t matter whether Garang was a unionist or a separatist, after all we had achieved our freedom at last what Dr. David de Chan called “ambiguous” vision in reference to the new Sudan vision. Secondly I had wanted that brother to pause and allow our people to heal, as such comments could cause more rift and problems to an already polarized and tribalised society. Third, my intention in my response then to that comrade is that we have pressing matters at hand where Kiir and his administration must held accountable. These are in the areas of high market prices, food insecurity, problem at the higher education system after the split,graft menace, institutional and human development matters, the ongoing disarmament process, reorganization and realignment of priorities for a nation among other pressing matters. I mistakenly trusted the writer. He stood his ground for a case that is popular (save for Garang distracters). Garang is a father of the nation, what is wrong with it? If it was Kiir or Machar, we would have gone with it. Dr. Garang should be left to rest in peace.

Separation vs Unity: who is fooling who?

Now that the debate has gone hay wire when both camps played it dirty to rake up matters of the 1991 split in a more subtle, clever and intelligence passion, what do you make of this matter at the end of it all? I have deliberately brought up the 1991 situation to the equation, because there is too much overtone we had there to attach to the argument. I have carefully read what was written and what wasn’t written and have a picture of where we have all come from. Before one hypothesises further or attempts to answer the above question (of what do you make of this matter), allow me to prod into that author’s biography. Who is that author, his political school or affiliation, drive and scholarly background. What I have collected thus far behind his reverie and polemic, especially his conclusion of the letter of reply to a certain Dinka man from Australia, that brother is certainly a Southerner, sagacious, unfortunately he has intellectual confidence that borders arrogance. There is also a tinge of duplicity under his garbs, that makes him oblivious of others feeling about what he had projected.

He is probably not a politician, a lawyer or professional writer. This is why: politicians mostly are anonymous, ambiguous and are ‘liars,’ That writer falls outside that box. Lawyers on the other hand play it safe all the time, unless they are accused of libel or defamation. Writers take go beyond the reported matters, but leave matters inconclusive and open, to avoid becoming biased. So who is he? Well, he could be an engineer or a fresh researcher (I might be wrong or right), a group that thought books or science are indelible or biblical. He doesn’t like SPLM party policies and Garang particularly and that is his right and no one could go in between to gag him.

That comrade has laboured to make us believe that he is a good listener or reader to what is in the book about Garang vision of unity. He does not want us to talk about Garang other side of his vision- separation. He called him ‘honest,’ and ‘not a liar.’ I disagree. That brother has played duplicity card and this is too bad for the generation to come. He knows everything and insists of being truthful. I hate such charade and wild pretension. If Garang has said he has ‘fought separatist,’ what is a deal or wrong with it. Even Kiir has also said the same line, as do all others. But their speeches should be judge by their context and that is what makes a difference. What is we say Garang or Kiir were lying, how did that change their level of contribution for the people of South Sudan; should we deny them their historical rightful places and go for ‘oscillators’ who jump ships any time they think the going is tough? Absolutely not. Credit goes where it is due, and Kiir being a sound minded man doesn’t want to be seen as taking the place of his predecessor, the man he highly esteemed.

The SPLM Party has survived threats and will again triumph

The SPLM has lived with such machinations orchestrated by such characters, and nothing has changed. The noble course of liberating the people of South Sudan and deliver their services has not been stopped and nothing will stop it for some time to come. We had tribal groups and individuals who ganged up against the SPLA/M and their fate has been like their treacherous causes. They never succeeded. There is no guarantee this time about that they will now succeed by whipping up support using 1991 diffeences. I have faith in Kiir-Machar SPLM party, no theories that are largely tribal driven Trojan Horse will prevail. Pretenders will try to plot but they must be prepared to wait longer. The party they had ‘stabbed’ from behind more than once will survive. I am making these points because that brother is heartless to insult the departed. He’s a traitor who want the SPLM/A to split.

Someone must get it off his dirty head that Garang isn’t the father of our nation. What Garang and his team have achieved for our people is amazing. There is time for everything, yesterday matters must remind behind. Our people want a break from matters that divide our people. Nuer and Dinka must learn to work together and Shilluk shouldn’t relish by throwing fire between them. This is what is all about author intention (to pitch groups against one another) and not because he did not know the truth that Garang was fighting for the rights of his people, and not against the separation per se. Garang fought two wars and by no means should this warrior and defender of our rights be denied his rightful place in our history by malicious among us

Who should be the father of the nation after all?

Let us return briefly to the question we have posed earlier about what do we make out of all these analysis at the end of the day. This is what I think are the scenarios: the SPLA/M has members who are dissatisfied for one reason or another, and these people are looking for an exit strategy. They may have been joined by their colleagues from other political parties,especially the Democratic Change and are hatching a regrouping formula. That brother who wrote that ominous letter is most certainly within that group-those outside the SPLM, who wants to woe others has nowhere to hide. Hiding by challenging the SPLM about Garang legacy won’t help. Whether Garang or Kiir were unionists or not isn’t the issue.

Secondly, and this could directly go to that author, who do you think could be named as the founding father of the nation? Will it be Gen. Kiir, Gen. Dr. Machar, Mr. Abel, Gen. Lagu, Dr. Lam? Justice must be served, Garang stands out among equals, as our father (the founding father of this nation). Take it or leave it, it’s done.

Isaiah Abraham lives in Juba and can be contacted on [email protected]