What could convince voters in 2015
By Zechariah Manyok Biar
June 25, 2013 – As we are approaching the 2015 elections, politicians are campaigning either openly or secretly. The potential voters are grouping behind their preferred individuals in what seems to be undemocratic manner. This has made some people, even in the international community, worry that elections in South Sudan in 2015 will end up dividing the country and cause chaos that would affect development.
But it is likely that the experiences after the 2010 elections have taught some intelligent leaders that rebelling because of losing elections does not make you get the seat you want. Because of this experience, the candidates who will lose elections in 2015 might not rebel against the government like George Athor and David Yau Yau did. They might work hard to win the next elections like many contestants in other democracies do.
Yet, the political aspirants who have high chances of winning in 2015 will truly be disappointed if they lost elections even though they will not rebel. To prevent this disappointment, it is better to know now what would convince South Sudanese to vote for any political aspirants in 2015.
In my personal understanding, what would make some aspirants lose elections in 2015 could be their own mistakes and the mistakes of their supporters. It is clear now that the top aspirants for president are relying on strategies that may not help them. If you read carefully, you will see that South Sudanese are divided into two major strategic beliefs. Each side is convinced that its strategy will work for its candidate in 2015.
The first belief is that being a member of the SPLM party will guarantee you the winning of the upcoming elections. This belief is based on the past realities. We know during the 2010 elections, for example, that being the SPLM candidate guaranteed many people their current political positions regardless of their individual popularity or lack of. Being an independent candidate in 2010 was equated with rebellion by people who just came out of war where political disagreement was often equated with treason.
Still, there were some areas in which this kind of belief never worked. In those areas, independent candidates beat SPLM candidates. The voters in those areas understood that political differences with SPLM party were not equal to treason. This understanding that being independent is not equal to treason is likely to increase in 2015, making those who believe in the popularity of the SPLM as their individual popularity lose positions to either candidates from other parties or independent candidates.
The reality shows that SPLM is losing its privilege of being a liberation icon. Citizens are now redefining both party and individual popularity by connecting it to service delivery. Those who do not notice this shift in definition might be disappointed in 2015.
The second belief is that tribal affiliation will guarantee somebody the winning of elections in 2015. Such a belief is not disconnected from reality. There are some examples were this belief can be justified. This year’s election in Kenya is one of these examples. Uhuru Kenyatta was elected president in March, 2013, despite the fact that the Western World was threatening to cut ties with Kenya if both Uhuru and William Ruto were elected. The reason behind the threat was that both men were indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
However, Kenyans did not think like the Western World did. They were thinking as tribes, not as a nation, when they voted for the indicted candidates. Now those who threatened to cut ties with Kenya have accepted the choice of Kenyans even though they still believe that it was not the best choice. This Kenyans’ belief in tribal affiliation and not in a candidate as an individual person is true in South Sudan today.
But, South Sudan could be different from Kenyans because there are many smaller tribes here that constitute a sizeable number. These smaller tribes might join hands and vote for their preferred presidential candidate, either from outside or from within one of the bigger tribes like the Dinka and the Nuer. This means the population of one tribe or two tribes will not guarantee its candidate the winning of the 2015 elections, making the belief on tribal affiliation for the winning of elections like it happened in Kenya a misplaced one.
Based on the above reasons, we would argue that convincing people to vote for a candidate in 2015 will combine one of the above reasons with some other reasons. Tribal affiliation to major tribes, for example, is likely to work when a candidate from one of the major tribe is able to attract voters from the minority tribes. Attracting voters from the minority tribes, however, will have to go beyond the arguments we see in most of the comments today.
The comments we see today are limited to either praising or insulting of one of the two leading candidates for president: President Kiir and Vice President Riek. The reasons that are given for insults or praises of each of the above mentioned leaders have become familiar and serious readers have started to ignore them. Some comments that are intended to market one of these candidates will soon become damaging to them rather than promoting them.
The best way of attracting voters from different communities will be through action, not marketing of a candidate through verbal comments.
Those who love to see their candidates win in 2015 must advice them to turn their attentions to practical issues that matter to citizens across ethnic groups in South Sudan. It is when people see how a particular candidate is going to change their lives for the best that they will be convinced to vote for him or her. It is not what the relative to a candidate says about the goodness of such a candidate (as we often read in most of the comments under articles) that will convince the voters to vote for him or her.
Zechariah Manyok can be reached at [email protected]