The New Year and the capital city
By Zechariah Manyok Biar
January 2, 2011 — The year 2011 was a year that South Sudan became independent from the Republic of Sudan. But what remained unclear was a free capital city of a free nation. The statuses of Juba have been unclear. It is claimed as the capital city of both the federal government of South Sudan and the state government of Central Equatoria. The federal governmental wants the state government relocated, but that proved difficult.
The Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan, 2005 stated that the land belonged to communities and the government, as we know, is not a community. It is slightly changed in the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan, 2011. But a community still has a say. So, the government has to get consent from any community for a land on which to operate. This gives the Central Equatoria the upper hand to either ask the federal government to leave Juba or be contented with the small land that it already has. The federal government could not be contented with the small land that it already has because it has a lot of activities. That means disagreements and counter disagreements between the two governments.
These disagreements developed from simple to complex until it reached the international community at the United Nations last year that the federal government wanted to take the community land by force in Juba. It was at that level that the federal Council of Ministers formed a committee to explore more options. They consulted with Central Equatoria State and confirmed that the elders of the community on which Juba is situated wanted the federal government to go somewhere else if not contented with the small land that the community has given to it. The federal government requested a larger land outside Juba to relocate to, but its request was rejected by the community and the state government. It then agreed to leave and chose Ramciel after obtaining approval from the communities in that area.
The decision put Central Equatoria State into a dilemma. Its citizens know that the land in and around Juba can only benefit them if there is a high demand for it. If the capital city is relocated, then Juba might be abandoned the same way Rumbek was abandoned in 2005. Undeveloped land by then will have no value. In order to have Juba developed to the point where many people will not leave it when the capital is relocated; some Equatorians, including people from other states who have already invested in Juba, have decided to play a delaying tactics in the name of national “important priorities.”
Recently, towards the end of 2011, some members from the South Sudan Legislative Assembly voiced their opposition to the relocation of the capital city at this time. Their reason: the building of a new capital city is not a priority. The priority, they argue, is the delivery of services and developmental activities to the people. They have vowed to make sure that any loan money is not used for the building of the new capital.
The Assembly’s argument would only have been convincing if these members were saying that they would force the Central Equatoria government to leave Juba so that the federal government can manage it. Talking of development in the style they are now using is wanting.
How can development be done by the federal government on another person’s property? Land ownership is governed by some regulations. It does not start from here so that we have no clue on how it works. It started when Adam Smith came up with the theories of the division of labor centuries ago in Europe. The theories included the payment of laborers. The idea of pay raised another question. What was the value on which salaries should be based? People in France said that the value was the land and people in the Netherlands said that the value was the trade.
John Locke from England seemed to agree with the land as the value. But he was still troubled by the question of “how any one should ever come to have a property in anything.” If the land is the value, then how does one acquire it to have claim on it as his or her property?
People in Central Equatoria would answer this question based on our Constitution that it is through the community that land is owned. All right. But how does one person in the community claim a piece of land as his or her property? Does the community own everything in its area including the River Nile? If not, then why?
John Locke got the answer: labor. He puts it this way in his book, Two Treatises of Government: “The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.” This means that you own the land that you have worked on. How can the federal government develop other people’s properties and surrender their ownership to those who cannot claim the ownership of labor? It is not possible.
Those who think they can trick the federal government this way to let it develop their area and leave it to them some years later when the “right time” comes for the building of a new capital should devise a different trick that may work for them, not what they are now thinking about.
The federal government is not going to waste resources building government properties in a town that will later be owned by one state. It may even give the current ministry complex to the University of Juba in exchange for the money that could be used for the building of the University’s new infrastructure. National priorities mean no important part of government is neglected and the capital city is very important. It is an asset not a liability.
We must know that in order for us to progress, we must consider the welfare of all South Sudanese. We should not try to manipulate the system to suit our limited interests. John Locke had been conscious about the needs of other people in his theory when he said this about land ownership: “It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.”
Whatever the Constitution says about land ownership, the government must make sure that there is enough land left in common for others to use. A capital city where the community claims ownership of every land to the point where ministries have nowhere to expand does not fit the status of a free capital city of the free nation.
Those who oppose the relocation of the capital city should not fool us that their concerns are the priorities for development. Priorities for development do include stable capital city where investors can get enough land for their companies and factories to expand and employ many citizens. These people who oppose the relocation should come up with clear reason this year so that we have stable capital city. Otherwise, we will accuse them of blind personal interests.
Zechariah Manyok Biar lives in Juba, Republic of South Sudan. He can be reached at [email protected]