Why South Sudan elections must proceed on scheduled
By Steve Paterno
January 22, 2014 – South Sudan is preparing for the conduct of general elections as it is constitutionally mandated, within the period of May and June of this year. This, however, has ruffled feathers among some quarters who oppose the exercise. For clarifications, those opposing the elections are basing their arguments on flimsy evidence.
For example, there is the argument that there ought to be a signed peace settlement first, then the formation of a transitional government, followed by elections. If one is forced to ask, where is that peace, leave alone the much fantasized ‘transitional government’ they talk about. The truth is that, the prospect for peace is as much ever illusive. The same cannot be said with the prospect of conducting elections, which is easily achievable.
If the government is to wait for the signing of peaceful settlement and then elapses over its constitutional mandated period, it risked being accused, and rightly so, for being an illegitimate government. Therefore, the right thing for the government to do is not to idly wait for a constitutional vacuum to take place. In other words, the government cannot wait and phase itself out, when in fact it has constitutional rights to renew itself.
But even theorizing hypothetically that in an event a peaceful settlement is reached; and then what will be wrong with the conduct of elections anyway? After all, this is not going to be the last elections. Many more will come and go to pass.
Another flimsy argument is that the country is not secured enough to carry out successful elections. Even the American administration tends to buy in such fallacy. Less we are too soon to forget even the most recent event, but we must remember that three years after invading and destabilizing Iraq; Americans were quick to call for elections, amidst gun blazing, explosion of bombs, and with the insurgencies vowing to “wash the streets with blood of voters.” The Americans also made the same call for conduct of elections in Afghanistan under similar circumstances of turmoil and carnage.
Nonetheless, the contrast with the situation in South Sudan is not even comparable by any stretch of imagination to what the Americans did in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places in as far as elections are concerned. The insecurity in South Sudan is only limited within three states, but the actual threat of the insurgencies is neutralized farther in the countryside, in villages densely populated.
Hence, the elections must move forward. The oppositions fear is obvious, in that they are at disadvantage of winning at polls. By postponing the elections, they wish to get into government through any other means possible, including violence. Nevertheless, elections is the antidote for violence and illegitimacy.
Steve Paterno is the author of The Rev. Fr. Saturnino Lohure, A Romain Catholic Priest Turned Rebel. He can be reached at [email protected]