Rebels Leader confuses democracy for violence, the tragedy of pseudo comprehensions

[Elisabeth Janaina]

Rebels Leader confuses democracy for violence, the tragedy of pseudo
comprehensions
Jan. 01 Politics, Uncategorized no comments

By: Gabriel Pager Ajang, Political Science & History Instructor,
Wright Career College, USA, JAN/01/2015, SSN;

Juba wrestles with question of violence. Rebels have not only embraced
violence as their norm but have also accepted it as a means of
achieving ends. Before December 2013 infamous war, rebels in the
Greater Upper Nile confused violence for democracy. Several leaders
have used violence as their guiding principle of ascending to power or
securing leadership.

In the Greater Upper region, violence is rampant. It has been
encouraged by the larger population as a platform of getting wealth.
Since 2006, it has been documented that the youth in Jonglei state
have engaged in vicious cycles of violence. Cattle are rustled for
pride and treasures in those several disreputable several cycles of
revenge.

Rebels confused democracy or freedom for violence. They tragically
call themselves “freedom fighters.” This is the tragedy of
pseudo-understanding of democracy. This episode is detrimental to
statehood and disastrous to citizens.

Rebels’ leader, Dr. Riek Machar presented an implausible argument
about democracy. Format or a proposal which is inconceivable and a
kind of ill informed model of democracy that is not grounded in the
principles of Western democracy. It is an ideal that suggests that
take power at all cost.

Riek models of democracy isn’t convincing because it is premised on
the confused or misguided bravery of South Sudanese youth and mythical
prophecies of Ngundeng. His model butchers the meaning of democracy.

Rebels’ deliberate orchestration of violence against the State of
South Sudan is criminal. They have reduced Bor Town, Malakal and
Bentiu to the demolitions the Stone Age era. And these riveting facts
defeat rebels’ arguments of developmental and democratic programs.

With current facts and state of affairs, the rebels are the worst
enemies of South Sudan. The current violence continues to destroy
South Sudan. Violence is a flawed argument for achieving democracy. It
is implausible and irrational argument for development and combating
corruption in South Sudan.

Violence has destroyed the little development that we have seen in Bor
Town, Bentiu, and Malakal and counties surrounding these cities.
Violence is not a means of achieving democracy; it is actually a means
of rejecting democratic platforms.

Rebels’ leaders fraudulently understood the actual meaning of
democracy. The principles of democracy are grounded in the
preservation of individual liberty, preservation of property, freedom
and protection of all citizens and political participation. Rebels’
pseudo-democracy has harmed several thousand families of South Sudan.

Hence, it is time for rebels to stop confusing bravery with suicidal
mission and democracy with prophecies of Ngundeng. It is even
questionable whether the prophet’s Ngundeng understood democratic
ideals. T

herefore rebels must rethink and take new recourse. They must cease
relying on Ngundeng prophecies that have made Greater Upper Nile
epicenter for unleashing violence against the state.

Juba survived those dark days. The administration narrowly thrives
through thick and thin of 2013-2014. South Sudan survived because
people of Equatoria and Bhar El Ghazel regions have had engaged in
limited form of violence.

Citizens in these regions have exercised restrained and citizenship. I
gave people of these regions credits for choosing peace over violence.
And as New Year begins, let us all seek for peace. Peace comes through
constructive dialogues.

The problem is our leaders in the SPLM have lost the meaning of
democracy and constructive views in translation. People that presented
constructive arguments but opposing views of government are branded as
rebels.

We have seen in December of 2013, the SPLM leadership
(SPLM-Government, and Rebels both) clearly confused democratic ideals
with violence and freedoms of expression were seen as threats.

The Leaders of the SPLM (rebels included) abandoned meaningful
dialogues and opted for libels, uncanny salacious statements… an
episode which eventually threatens the State. Such statements and
confusions muddled state of affairs, and the whole situation got out
of hand and spiraled into violence.

The state of disorder was caused by the absence of trust among leaders
and their complete failure to recognize a legitimate government. The
public disorder ensued as the country plunged into her tragic state of
affairs.

The inability of the SPLM leaders to follow one leader, the failure of
the SPLM leaders to accept Kiir as their president created an anarchic
situation.

On the other hand, the administration subsequent rejections of honest
counsel in areas of reforms and institutions of government led to
nihilism or insurrectionist disorder surged and the whole condition
transpired into turmoil which dangerously ripened on the December
2013.

The fact that violence is used as means of ascending to power and to
some extent accepted by Juba is itself a threat to our statehood.

Nevertheless, the honest, thoughtful and well researched informed
proposals that have helped several nascent countries develop in the
past are currently seen as threats by Juba. All these make me wonder,
what sort of country do we want to leave for next generation?

What would the poor citizens whose properties have been destroyed,
parents were killed and the livelihood shattered say? Could these
people be seen as threats or be branded as rebels if they raise
complaints to the government?

Nation building is not realized from vacuum, it comes through serious
conversations. It is realized through encouraged competitive healthy
and well developed ideas. These are then accelerated by constructive
and meaningful dialogues among leaders and citizens.

For instance, we have existing South Sudanese customary laws, the
Arab/Khartoum cultural laws, and the Eastern Africa/Western informed
population. In such diverse environment, the government has a
responsibility to gradually integrate these diverse views now or these
could prove catastrophic in the future.

Constructive views and meaningful dialogues are enhanced by freedom of
expression. The diversity of the laws and cultures of Arab, Africans
and the West can enrich South Sudan society, institutions of
government, if feasible political engagement is permitted.

However, just like Juba confuses freedom of expression with threats,
rebels confuse democracy with violence. Freedom of speech isn’t a
threat to government. It is a format of raising concern issues that
affect citizens in remote villages to state and central governments.

Rebels on one hand have butchered the meaning of democracy. They
unilaterally proposed 21 states and change of South Sudan name to
Federal Republic of South Sudan.

Honestly, a High School student is smarter than Riek Machar. These
proposals can never be done by rebels alone. Democratic leader would
seek consent from the governed (citizenry).

Good leader would propose referendum to be held to find out whether
name of the country can be changed. Another referendum can be held for
citizens to vote whether states can be splits into 21 or not.

Again, only citizens could make these calls, it is neither Juba nor
rebels factions. I hope writers continue to dissect all these
confusions. It is time we schooled Dr. Riek Machar and Adwok Nyaba on
this subject of democracy and their illiterate saga in this conflict.

The previous and current rebellions and accumulative vices besides
international and regional interests are the actual threats to South
Sudan. These threats can never be confused with freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression could perfect union of the diverse tribes,
especially if freedoms of expression are fostered to enhance
transformational ideas and with clear case of rejecting violence.

Juba must understand that any rejection of freedom of expression or
seizure of newspapers can be used by the international entities of
making their case against the government. Hence, Juba needs to respect
citizens’ opinions as along as they are not harmful to citizens and
not a threat to statehood.

In this New Year, I hope we focus on peace, and reconciliation.

I do acknowledge that the freedoms of expression in the country and
pushing for reform have been hijacked by the rebellion. Now, there is
a fine line between raising legitimate issues that need quick
resolution and platform of rebels.

The more we brand people as rebels or pro-government the more we could
kill constructive debate, a debate that is desperately needed for
development and viability.

Our country isn’t black and white. We do not hold monolithic view or
one view. Diverse views or constructive dialogues must never be
confused with rebellion.

Rebels are fighting for democracy and their ideals of democracy are
deeply rooted in evil or Jok rach (Ngundeng) mythical superstitions.
Ngundeng’s concepts of leadership are alien to democracy.

Apparently, all democratic ideals reject usage of violence as a means
of securing power. Times again and again Riek has not only used
violence but embraced Ngundeng prophecies to catapult to power. He
wants to become president through violence. He wants to kill his way
into leadership.

I am sure Ngundeng could accept bloody president but God will not
accept such unlawful means of securing power.

The SPLM internal divisions and tribal conflicts have brought this
nation to its knees. In this year, I would recommend to the SPLM
leaders to reconcile their disputes; unite their ranks in order to
propose programs that would address regional and international
interests and tribal conflicts in South Sudan.

Tribal conflicts warrant specific proposal from the SPLM leadership.
Our country wants lasting peace if the leaders do not like it.
However, the international and regional interests could derail South
Sudan economy and sovereignty if the people and leaders of South Sudan
are not united to preserve their interests and sovereignty.

It is about time they concur that they are destroying very essence of
the independence that they fought for more than two decades. As the
New Year comes, people of South Sudan must choose peace. This new
year, South Sudanese can choose peace over violence.

Country belongs to all of us, and as we begin this New Year, I urged
all the leaders, both SPLM leaders in many camps (in Government,
Rebels, G11) to welcome diverse perspectives, and more constructive
dialogue that reject violence.

In the course of the last year and one month, we have engaged in
sectarian politics and violence and that did not help us. The surfaced
deep seated issues of the liberation struggles and post-independence
that are occasionally exacerbated by grudges and unresolved problems
of the past.

All these need to be resolved. As we begin this year, we must
understand that the greatest threats to South Sudan viability are
ethnic related conflicts, the SPLM internal disputes and international
and regional interests.

Therefore, let’s all reconfigure our behaviors and look for ways in
which we can remedy these glitches and find peaceful ways of solving
problems. I hope New Year comes with renewal of the hearts and minds
of our leaders so that peace is realized in the Republic of South
Sudan.

I affirm that we will recover, we will over setback, we will overcome
obstacles, will resolve this conflict and emerge stronger than ever
because we are people of South Sudan.

We live by common pride in nationalism and patriotism and these ideals
have secured our independence and will continue to lead this nation to
prosperity and brighter future.

May peace be upon the people of South Sudan!

Gabrial Pager Ajang, Political Science and History Instructor at
Wright Career College
He can be reached at ajangas...@gmail.com