Tribalism is in trouble
By Zechariah Manyok Biar
July 12, 2013 – When South Sudanese single out something and fight against it, they do it with absolute commitment. The fight against the unity of Sudan in 2011 is one of these examples. South Sudanese singled out the word “unity” in 2011 and demonized it until everybody inside the country would feel ashamed to mention the word in public. Politicians became careful on how they would choose their terms when talking about Referendum.
Now Referendum is over and South Sudan is two years old as an independent state. South Sudanese have decided to glorify the word “unity” again. They know that their hard earned separation could collapse if the word unity which was thrown away in 2011 does not join it. It is because of this desire for rebaptism of unity as important that tribalism is now in trouble.
Towards the celebration of the second anniversary for the independence of South Sudan, for example, I had been hearing the listeners calling in to Radio Miraya in the morning and demonized tribalism the way they did to unity before the Referendum in 2011.
People from other countries are also joining South Sudanese in the fight against tribalism. President Museveni of Uganda, for example, warned against tribalism when he gave a speech as the Chief Guest in Juba during the celebration of the second anniversary of South Sudan’s independence on July 9, 2013.
I would not agree with President Museveni, however, if his warning implied that the current struggle within the SPLM party is tribalism. I would only agree with him if he meant that politics should not be tribalized. Most of us would agree that tribalized politics must be condemned in any true democracy. But normal democratic contests should not be seen as a sign of weakness. Weakness in democracy is the opposite of what is going on within the SPLM party now.
Having said the above, I would clarify that tribalism which South Sudanese are now against is not individual tribal membership. We know that tribal membership is not a bad thing. It is part of our individual identity. The tribalism that South Sudanese are against is the distorted tribal identity. In other word, they are against the use of tribal identity for selfish reasons.
Many a time, both politicians and ordinary citizens take their tribal identity as a means for achieving their selfish agenda. This was why you saw people who rebelled after the 2010 elections like David Yau Yau and the Late George Athor turning to their tribes for support. They gave all reasons they could to show their people that they lost elections because they belonged to that particular tribe, a connection that does not make sense. Citizens also take tribal affiliation as a matter of pride and security. That is why they are easily misled.
We can agree that tribal identity is a matter of pride to anybody, but it does not guarantee one’s security. People who hate other tribe members would feel insecure every time they find themselves in other tribes. Their wrong beliefs would make them think that members from other tribes hate people from tribes not their own.
Feeling of real security and happiness are realized when one regards him/herself as a true friend to people from other tribes. It is this feeling that makes people love their workplaces were workers are from different communities. Any member of the Red Army who was in Panyido in the 1980s would understand what I am talking about here.
When we went to Panyido in 1987, we first lived in what was referred to as Alamaat (chiefdoms). We regarded such affiliation as the only way to be happy and secure. But the opposite was true. Many children died because life in Alamaat was miserable
.
Life got better in Panyido when the current Inspector General of Police General Pieng Deng, who was Captain at the time, was assigned to Panyido as the Camp Manager. The then Captain Pieng decided that mixing us up would solve problems we were in. We did not think mixing us up was a good idea. We had already formulated our perceptions of other communities. Children from Bor, on the one hand, believed that children from part of Bahr el Ghazal were bad people because they “ate” pythons. Children from part of Bahr el Ghazal, on the other hand, believed that children from Agaar and Bor were “dirty” people because they were not circumcised. We wrote bad songs against one another on these perceptions. Tensions were often high among these communities.
Ironically, happiness was not realized within each community. There were tensions between clans. Big boys within one clan would also mistreat small boys, making them think about their parents they left back at home as only sources of happiness and security. They became terribly homesick because they could not feel cared for. That was the reason for high rate of death.
Yet, our wrong perceptions of other tribes made us still believe that the situation we were in could be worst if we were mixed up. Unlike us, Captain Pieng knew our situation would be better in mixed-up groups. That was why he pressed on with his plan even though we booed and deserted him twice in general parade after he mentioned his plan to mix us up.
The mixing-up plan was implemented in stages. Group one to four were selected from different communities and mixed up. Those who were first selected by the big boys who were leaders in Alamaat were the children they regarded as troublemakers. When those supposed troublemakers went to their mixed-up groups, their living conditions changed immediately for the best. They became better than those of us who were still staying in Alamaat. We then craved for mixing up.
Within some months, general mixing up was done. We immediately found that children from other communities were good people. Happiness increased and death reduced. We realized that caring for one another in mixed members of different tribes was better than what we had experienced in Alamaat. We found out that friends from other tribes were often willing to give up their own lives to care for you when you were sick. They could fear that you would pass your own sickness to them. They would care for you like or even better than your own brother.
It is the above reality that South Sudanese are now beginning to realize. They want a country where one would care for a member of a different tribe as a brother or a sister. They want a country where support of a political contestant will be based on what he or she can do for the whole nation, not one tribe. South Sudanese have now understood that a member of one’s tribe who is in top leadership position will not make the condition of your tribe any better than that of those who do not have any member in higher positions. They have realized that those who use tribal identity in politics use it for selfish reason. That is why tribalism is now in trouble.
Because of this change in focus, I believe the misuse of tribal identity will soon die and unity that was thrown away during the Referendum will be welcomed back home like the Prodigal Son. Politicians who use tribal identity for selfish reasons will soon start to be ashamed to use it in the same way they were ashamed to mention the word unity during the Referendum.
Zechariah Manyok Biar can be reached at [email protected]