What are priorities of the South Sudan transitional government
By Beny Gideon Mabor
The recently concluded agreement on the resolution of conflict in South Sudan is widely criticized of its ambitiousness in every thematic area and will likely be problematic in its implementation. According to the public discourse on the peace agreement organized by Ebony Centre for Strategic Studies in the third week of August, 2015, many speakers of our sunrise generation were worried about the agreement, being much overdosed with structural functionalities. The same worries are heard on the streets of South Sudan from common men and women on the possibility of implementing the peace agreement which is seen by others as an imposed peace deal by the regional and international powers.
But reading the peace agreement from third party point of view, the summary intention or underlying idea in this agreement are two main things namely: the deconcentration of executive powers from single appointing authority to different appointing authorities at all levels of government. In other words, it is rejuvenation of the existing devolution of powers under decentralized system of governance but with watertight inter-governmental linkages and not the usual business. The second objective is an attempt to address the biggest challenge of institutional reforms at all levels.
Therefore, what is your critique again if this is the case to be addressed? What have we learned so far since the formation of the government of South Sudan in term of institutional legitimacy or competence of public officials deployed? What has become the result of dysfunctional institutions in December 2013? And finally what legacy or record of duties is the government of South Sudan going to be proud of and leave to the present and upcoming generations? The answers to these begging questions are addressed in this peace agreement if the political leadership exerts good will to implement it in later and sprit.
In light of this background, the strategic priorities of the would-be transitional government of national unity in a crosscutting format would include but not limited to: implement the agreement with promise of no return to war. Second, initiate process of reintegration of refugees and internally displaced persons into their normal life through special reconstruction fund and reparation process. The third agenda is to fully subscribe to the institutional reforms provided under the agreement particularly revitalization of establishment orders, clear programme of activities and procedures for appointment of the mandate holders.
Procedurally, evidence shows that appointments in the transitional governance arrangements are set on robust and transparent processes usually by an adhoc committee tasked to receiving applications, scrutinize them and recommend appropriate candidates for parliamentary vetting and approval and subsequently appointment by the President.
The fourth priority is to establish a national and competent professional army and beyond to develop national security architecture that clearly defines division of roles and responsibilities between different security organs and systems. Today, there is thin line between roles of the army and that of other organized forces which have negatively affect our condition of living. The fifth is to revive the existing and well developed South Sudan development plan 2011-2013 and to enable the national legislature appropriate a budget as per demanding priority than to say everything is a priority and lastly to develop South Sudan foreign policy which is none-existing in the first place. It was so unfortunate that South Sudan function as a member of the community of nations without its foreign policy agenda toward its cooperating states.
Beny Gideon, research interests include politics and governance, human rights and social accountability. He can be reached via email [email protected]