Shooting at the shadow?
By Agar Mayor Gai-Makoon
The sociopolitical situation in South Sudan is shockingly tense and has placed an appalling toll on the daily life of citizens. Human toll, or fear of losing lives have not only broken social fabric among citizens but also, they have turned people against one another. And this citizen collision which basically rests on the tribal poles has slowed economic progress and squashed the foundational principles of peace, unity and prosperity that enabled the founders of this country to liberate it from then more stable and stronger government in the Sudan. Those three fundamentals are powerful and could have made South Sudan a role model for democratic ideals across the globe in 21 years, a regional and continental economic giant in another 21 years if truly they were kept and well protected for application by any leaders in this country. Unfortunately, it did not happen that way. We got consigned to oblivion, forgetting the noble paths and ideals that brought freedom. This is very unfortunate.
And the worse of all, the inopportune digression from a recent past is startling. It is hard to imagine how someone would forget so soon about what they fought against. Twenty years or even more is no time, for leaders to forget a cause that claimed nearly a million lives.
However, while scrolling my Facebook news feed yesterday evening, I saw a post from Eye Radio that stirred both hope and fear in me. It’s about the government’s plan and fresh steps towards the implementation of the 2018 Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan. The six-point peace strategy is a commendable step if it is purposed to expedite the wheels of democracy through the implementation of R-ARCSS 2018. But if it is the otherwise, for example, the government making strategic moves to weaken the SPLM/A IO by dividing them, then, I fear it would hamper the peace process because the SPLM IO is a principal stakeholder and signatory to the R-ARCSS. This means that if they are weakened and sidelined, the other parties like the SPLM IG would be reluctant and not willing to implement the peace process, who knows, or they can try means to maintain their relevance and political presence.
In fact, the peace deal exists because of the opposition, and silencing them would mean no deal. And if it is so, then, more militia and opposition aligned militaries would continue to exist, and the country will always be at war. Perhaps, president Kiir’s led government might not achieve much because governments only make economic and political transformation if there is peace and security in the country. We have to be very vigilant in this critical time because any move from any signatory to the 2018 peace agreement carries a lot on us.
The hope for stable and progressive South Sudan to a greater extent lies in implementation of the agreement. All citizens believe that through this agreement, tables will turn for the better, and the traumas caused by conflict and loss of loved ones would only remain as testimonies signifying resilience and the power of coming together again after war. And it could be evidenced by how peaceful South Sudan became since 2018, even when the agreement was not fully implemented.
But it seems the parties to the agreement are not willing to implement it. And I have to make it clear that this six-point peace strategy won’t make any much positive difference in the implementation of the 2018 peace deal. The reason is that all the parties to this agreement do not have the political will to do it. Take for example, the security sector reform which is number 5 in the six-point strategic plan. According to the security arrangement protocol 2018, disarmament of civilians and demobilization of forces were a pre-transitional requirement while unification of forces was to be implemented concurrently with other protocols throughout the transitional period. Supposedly, they would be enforced in the eight-month pre-transitional period. It’s more than six years since the agreement was signed, transitional government instituted with all security reform bodies constituted, and still security arrangement has proven so hard to go by. No party is willing to give up its forces. Parties want to continue to have army that they can control and use for their own political interests.
And perhaps, I wonder and feel so bad when people do not talk about the main problem of South Sudan—lack of a single national army which has created a space for politicians to form militia that are loyal only to them. And you know what? Disarming the already existing militia or trying to unify them is not a simple thing. In fact, it is possible that more crises could be generated in those pursuits because there is no absolute winner in such play.
The good news is that the solution to military polarization is simple— It is the political will. When national interests outweigh party interests, it becomes very easy to deal with issues at home. Perhaps, unless there is political will, our leaders will always continue to shoot at the shadow missing the main target.
The writer has a background in sociopolitical philosophy. He currently studies medicine at Ain Shams university, Cairo, Egypt. He can be reached on +201129107334, or thieng.thiengwada@gmail.com
