The obstacles to Bor-Nuer reconciliation

By Zechariah Manyok Biar

December 19, 2011 — On December 17, 2011, the wedding between Peter Biar Ajak Deng and Nyathon James Hoth which was meant to be exclusively a social function turned into a forum for deep political disagreements between the Vice President Dr. Riek Machar and Uncle Malok Aleng. The disagreement was on the strategies of reconciliation in Greater Upper Nile State. Uncle Malok started by challenging Dr. Machar on the role to play in reconciling the region traumatized by many internal conflicts. He said that the marriage between Peter and Nyathon was meant to honor Gen. Hoth Mai for his loyalty to the cause of South Sudan when he stayed foot during the 1991 split. Dr. Machar disagreed with such a statement and accused Uncle Malok of dividing Nuer people on the basis of loyalty. He repeated for the fourth time that he had apologized to Bor people for the death of many Bor people during the split. Dr. Machar said that he took the responsibility for anything that happened during that time since the aim of his split has now been realized through the independence of South Sudan.

The tension flared up between the two sides of Nuer and Dinka during the speeches of these two important community elders. When Dr. Machar argued that in order to achieve genuine reconciliation, it would be better to focus on the future rather than focusing on the past, people who applauded thunderously when Uncle Malok talked about the same unity grumbled against the few who applauded Dr. Machar’s point from Twic East’s side. What had changed in the goodness of unity idea then? Nothing, but people differed in what they believed as rightful approach of achieving genuine reconciliation. So, who is right, Malok or Riek? To answer this question, we need to examine the approaches the two sides are respectively using to advance their side of argument. I believe it is not about Malok and Riek, it is about Bor-Nuer views.

Both Nuer and Bor groups have arrived at their conclusion on what their position is and they are trying to manipulate the other side to sign up to such a conclusion. Nuer has reached the conclusion (and Dr. Machar agrees) that the split was to achieve a national agenda for self determination and the killing of Bor people was the unfortunate part of this national goal. That goal, to them, has now been achieved. So they should not be blamed on acting the way they did to achieve this goal. Bor people, on the other hand, concluded that they are victims of unjustified split and therefore are demanding Dr. Machar to apologize to them on moral ground for the massacre. Nothing less, nothing more.

Dr. Machar agrees that his apology is necessary and he has already apologized, but the apology, he argues, is based on the mistakes that happened during the process of achieving the important goal of self determination. Bor do not think Dr. Machar’s argument is reasonable. Because of this, they reject his apology and demand that he apologize to Bor people in Bor town, Panyagor, and Duk. Dr. Machar’s group thinks that such a move would result in reversed victimization of their people.

Both groups have differences within them too. Bor group has one part that does not like the reconciliation on psychological ground. They witnessed horrible killings of their loved ones during the split or have been widowed and orphaned by the same event. They feel that it is unthinkable to forgive Dr. Machar and his group for the killings. Another part rejects the reconciliation on political ground. They want to use the split as a reason for keeping Dr. Machar out of President. The last part thinks that Dr. Machar’s apology has not yet gone far enough because it is based on unconvincing reason as a precondition. To them, the apology should be unconditional and sincere.

The Nuer group, on the other hand, has one part that thinks that Dr. Machar’s unconditional apology would humiliate their community and therefore they should attach it to the idea of bigger national best interest which was self determination. Another group believes that Dr. Machar’s apology would land him in prison in the international court. The last group believes that Dr. Machar’s apology should be agreed upon by their community first before airing it out.

These positions clearly show that both groups are holding to their respective conclusion and would not agree with anything contrary to it. So, how do we achieve the reconciliation between the two? There is a need for open-mindedness, I believe, in the debate between the two sides.

In 2009, the University of Notre Dame in the United States nominated President Barack Obama for Honorary Doctorate. The decision was seriously opposed by those who morally disagreed with President Obama. They argued that a person who supported abortion should not be honored by Catholic University. Many people including Catholic bishops boycotted the ceremony because of Obama. Obama had been nominated also by the University of Arizona for Honorary Doctorate and the administration of the University changed its mind at the last minute because of opposition from the public even though the University is a public University. Now, how could the University of Catholic Church proceed with its decision? That was a tough decision for the University to make. But the administration decided to proceed, causing a lot of protest.

During the ceremony before the award of the doctorate to President Obama, the University President Father Dr. John Jenkins said this: “Differences must be acknowledged, and in some cases cherished. But too often differences lead to pride in self and contempt for others, until two sides – taking opposing views of the same difference — demonize each other. Whether the difference is political, religious, racial, or national — trust falls, anger rises, and cooperation ends … even for the sake of causes all sides care about.”

I believe Dr. Jenkins has a point. When people capitalize on differences, distrust and anger will take over important issues even issues that everybody cares about. Dinka Bor and Nuer communities undoubtedly care about reconciliations in our new Republic of South Sudan, but I think “pride in self and contempt for others” have taken over the situation in our different views on how to bring the two communities together.

I have also noticed that our leaders like to stoop down to popular pressure even when they know that not always is a leader required to follow the will of the majority in the solution of disputes. An effective leader is the one who takes tough decisions for the best interest of a nation.

There is no any other person who will unite the Nuer and Dinka Bor unless both sides stand for what is right. Those who stand for moral virtues should understand that the vice, according to Aristotle, lies in extremism. Virtue, according to Aristotle, lies in moderation and moderation requires flexibility that is guided by reason.

I agree with Dr. Jenkins in this: “When we face differences with fellow citizens, we will be tested: do we keep trying, with love and a generous spirit, to appeal to ethical principles that might be persuasive to others – or do we condemn those who differ with us for not seeing the truth that we see?”

Zechariah Manyok Biar lives in Juba, Republic of South Sudan. He can be reached at [email protected]