Last Word on Kiir’s National Dialogue: It’s no dialogue but a mockery of it

[Elisabeth Janaina]

Last Word on Kiir’s National Dialogue: It’s no dialogue but a mockery of it
May. 27 National, Uncategorized no comments

BY: DANIEL JUOL NHOMNGEK, KAMPALA, UGANDA, MAY/27/2017, SSN;

The swearing in of a 94-member steering committee to head the national
dialogue should not be a source of joy for all of us but rather we
should be prepared for more crisis or even future war.

It is the missed opportunity as the President has again failed this
time to do what is required for the national dialogue to be successful
and to bring a permanent peace in a country facing war like South
Sudan.

It is sad to blatantly state that the current national dialogue of
President Kiir is not national dialogue when tested on common sense
principle but rather it is something which is like a “national
monologue,” which in my opinion is but a mockery.

This Dialogue established by President Kiir is a recipe for future war
in South Sudan. This is because it will not bring permanent peace in
the country. Though, the war may stop now, that does not mean that it
is the current national dialogue that has brought peace but the war
has just been postponed for future generation.

For that reason, it is sad to see the country being bogged down in
vicious cycle of violence and to also see the liberator turned
president losing sight of the long cherished principles of justice,
liberty and prosperity in South Sudan.

In fact, for South Sudan to realize these principles, there must be
someone who is solely concerned with the protection of the lives and
welfare of South Sudanese but not power and wealth.

These are what are understood to be the ultimate aims of politics in
South Sudan, which is contrary to the leaders that South Sudan wants.

Leaders that South Sudan wants as already stated in the above
paragraph are selfless individuals whose goals and objectives are that
of the country guided by the principles of justice, liberty and
prosperity for all South Sudanese.

Failure to get the leaders of the type as described in this paragraph
to run the country will keep the country on prolonged war and
indefinite crisis.

Once the crises have been the order of the day in any country it will
be hard to end them quickly. South Sudan has reached that state of
unending crises and once the armed stage has been reached in any
conflict, it is always difficult to stop it and the longer an armed
struggle continues, the more difficult this becomes.

In the unending crises like the case of an internal armed conflict
like what we see in the context of South Sudan, the only viable option
to such crises is to engage in a process of negotiations, which is an
essential step in finding a solution.

This article, therefore, is the last word on the President Kiir’s
dialogue which is a mockery of national dialogue in its real sense.

The president in fact disguised his plan to frustrate all attempts to
solve the conflict which may affect his personal interest to remain in
power by coming up with this substandard national dialogue.

For the National Dialogue to be described as such, it must be
unconditional, which lacks in the present national dialogue of
President Kiir.

It was therefore a mistake for the President to establish the National
dialogue and then restricted it in respect as to who should
participate in it and who should not. Restricting it as such as
witnessed in the case of Dr. Riek Machar who the President refused to
participate was the beginning of the failure of the said national
dialogue and we are wasting time and national resources on what is not
going to be successful in the end.

As I have already stated above, this article is my last word in this
regard is that the current President Kiir’s National Dialogue, which
is not a national dialogue nor is it a national monologue as many
call, but it’s a mockery of national dialogue.

I have stated here that it is not national dialogue because of the
following reasons—
First all, for the national dialogue to bring permanent peace it must
be inclusive. This means that all key interest groups such as women,
youth, opponents or rebels in the case of South Sudan and other hated
groups should be invited to take part in negotiation.

Because of a need to create trust and deeper understanding among all
the participants, the process of national dialogue must begin as a
political process. For the process to be deemed as political process
it must be accepted by all parties that must be inclusive,
transparent, and consultative in the preparatory phase that sets the
foundation for a genuine national dialogue after that.

In relation to the above, the decision on how a national dialogue
should be made by all the parties to the conflict as was the case in
South Africa in 1990s. For example, before the National Dialogue was
conducted in South Africa, the opposition parties were all invited and
in response to invitation, they formed the “Convention for a
Democratic South Africa” or CODESA, whose aim was to form part of a
political negotiating process.

The CODESA, as a whole was divided into various working groups that
worked on the preparation for national reconciliation, which took a
period of two years i.e. 1991-2. These Working Groups met and
negotiated frequently and after that they eventually delivered their
reports on their agreements and recommendations.

This example from South Africa clearly illustrates the fact that the
national dialogue is almost like the real political process that
results into ordinary peace agreements as was seen in the case of
Compromised Peace Agreement (the CPA), 2015.

Nonetheless, the only difference between the ordinary peace agreements
and the national dialogues or national reconciliations is that whereas
on one hand the former is negotiated between the warring parties only
as seen in the case of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), 2005,
the national dialogue on the other hand, involves the whole nation.

Otherwise, the two are the same in a way that peace process involves
intense political process as the dialogue itself.

To sum up on this point, for the national dialogue to be successful,
there must be preparations, which are undertaken carefully and
transparently by a preparatory committee that must be inclusive of all
major parties to the conflict.

In respect to South Sudan in relation to this point, what the
President ought to have done was to give independence and neutral
party to the conflict responsibility to invite unconditionally all
parties to the conflict including Dr. Riek Machar in South Sudan to
negotiating table where they would agree on comprehensive and
permanent cease-fire which will be followed by agreement on how
national dialogue should be conducted.

Failure to do this confirms my last word on President Kiir’s Dialogue
that it is neither a national dialogue nor a national monologue but it
is a mockery of national dialogue.

The second reason I deem the present process in South Sudan not to be
regarded as national dialogue is that it is not transparent since it
lacks public participation.

The present so-called national dialogue is only composed all friends
to the president who are not neutral and because of that it is in
risks of or has lost legitimacy at the start. This is because there is
a serious restriction on the public participation and also no way to
keep the public informed about the process of national dialogue given
the rampant insecurity in the country.

For the national dialogue to be successful, it must go beyond the
delegates who are in the room. Hence, a national dialogue, should
therefore, have mechanisms to include the broader population so that
the public is able to understand the whole process and further able to
contribute to the process of national dialogue.

Thus, the broad participation can only be achieved by linking local
dialogue processes to the national dialogue, as well as through public
consultations, regular outreach, and coverage in the media.

Failure to involve the greater public by the present proposed national
dialogue makes not to be transparent which shows that it is very weak
and consequently it will never achieve its purpose. This explains the
fact that it is not a national dialogue as some people have perceived
it.

Thirdly, a national dialogue must be led by a credible convener. The
credible convener means the one who heads the dialogue. This is
important as it helps to secure the participation of a wide variety of
stakeholder groups since the process can be fair as it avoids the
perceptions of biasness. Hence, a credible convener is very utmost
important.

The convener may take the form of a single person, a group of people,
an organization, or a coalition of organizations. Besides that, the
convener must be a respected individual or group of persons or the
convener should be respected by the majority of citizens and should
not have any political aspirations or goals that would present an
obvious conflict of interest.

The recent processes in Tunisia and Senegal for example, owe much of
their success to the credibility of the conveners.

Relating this point to the present South Sudanese National dialogue,
it is my contention that the convener appointed by President Kiir
though may be neutral it is not credible as he is old and also his
appointment is not sanctioned by all the parties to the conflict.

This may make him or two of them not credible conveners in the real
sense and hence the said national dialogue is not national dialogue in
the actual sense.

Fourthly, for the process to be termed as national dialogue, it must
be topped by the agenda that addresses the root causes of conflict.
This is because a national dialogue seeks to reach agreement on key
issues facing a country.

It is for that reason, months or even years of pre-negotiation or
consultation is needed purposely to allow the parties to identify and
agree upon the fundamental issues that constitute the basis of the
conflict.

The issues such as national identity, political rights, basic
freedoms, institutional reforms or constitutional reform, equitable
sharing of resources, election procedures, and the structure of
government, which are central to the conflicts in South Sudan must be
considered in the national dialogue negotiation or process.

Hence, a national dialogue’s agenda should provide for substantive
conversation around the major grievances of all key interest groups in
the country.

As seen in the above explanation the national dialogue must be started
with the identification of the root causes of the conflict. This is
important because once such root causes are identified and addressed,
the permanent peace can be secured and the brighter future of citizens
assured.

It is because of this fact the present proposed Kiir’s national
dialogue is not a national dialogue in the real sense.

Fifthly, for a national dialogue to be called national dialogue and to
achieve its purpose there must be clear mandate, structure, rules and
procedures. This is because National dialogues often take place
outside the existing institutions of government.

The reason for conducting it outside the government is that the
sitting government and existing institutions are unable to resolve the
major issues at hand, either because they are seen as neither
legitimate nor credible, or because they are unwilling to challenge
the status quo.
It is for the above reason a national dialogue is supposed to have its
own set of procedures and rules for making decisions, which should be
transparent and carefully geared towards the goal of achieving its
purpose which is permanent peace.

There must be procedures that should include mechanisms to break
deadlocks if an agreement cannot be reached. Furthermore, there must
be a clear mandate that gives authority to a national dialogue
committee. This must be established either through a peace agreement,
law, presidential decree, or some other manner.

For example, the clear mandate of Tunisia’s national dialogue allowed
delegates to make steady progress toward four goals: selecting a
caretaker government, approving a new constitution, establishing an
electoral management body, and setting a timetable for elections.

In relation to South Sudan, the National Dialogue Committee should
have been given clear mandate to achieve four clear goals as stated in
the above paragraph. This is important because there is a need to
establish a new system which will involve dismantling the current
system.

Failure give the national dialogue committee mandate to carry out the
activities as explained here makes the present national dialogue not a
national dialogue in actual sense.

Sixth, for a national dialogue to achieve its purpose there must be
agreed mechanism for implementation of outcomes. Hence, national
dialogue should clearly lay out the plan that will ensure that the
resulting recommendations from the pre- and national dialogue
negations are implemented.

As already pointed out above, the plan mechanism should involve the
enactment of a new constitution, law, policy, or other programs and it
must also take into considerations the issues of transitional justice,
constitution making, and elections.

It must be noted that without a clear implementation plan, a national
dialogue is at risks of consuming extensive time and resources without
producing any tangible results.

This is because the political transition achieved through wrong
procedure, which is produced by hastily organized national dialogue is
a failure.

For that reason, for a national dialogue to be successful in South
Sudan, it must have clear agreed mechanisms that will guide the
transitional government in implementation of the outcomes of the
national dialogue, which importantly include a political transition.

Lastly but not least, what makes the present national dialogue not a
dialogue in the real sense is because the President does not have
powers to institute the National Dialogue Committee.

The committee and the convener that should be selected to constitute
national dialogue needed in South Sudan must be agreed by all the
parties to the conflict, which is not the case in our purported
national dialogue.

In conclusion, my last word on national dialogue of Kiir as based on
all the reasons given above is that it is not a national dialogue in
the real sense. Thus, for it to be national dialogue it must meet the
principles explained above which in brief are inclusiveness;
transparency, credible convener; it must be able to address the root
causes of conflict in South Sudan; it must have a clear mandate,
structure, rules, and procedures and agreed mechanism for
implementation of the outcomes.

Without meeting these principles, I am afraid the constituted national
dialogue has failed from the start. This is my last word!

NB//: the author is the human rights law and can be reached through:
juold...@yahoo.com