Military Or Civil Rule, Which One Is Applicable To South Sudan ?
By Tor Madira Machier,
Nov 17, 2014(Nyamilepedia) — The term ‘military’ could be a very pleasant one used to refer to a segment of any given society. In reality , rulers some time tends to commit a number of mistakes based on a false assumption of what is known as the ‘MILITARY RULE’. This is what has been hampering all our attempts to develop a democratic nation in South Sudan over the past three years begining from July 2011; instead of working to establish a solid and sustainable democratic pillars, the Militarism regardless of its ideological beliefs is underminig the process by manipulating the rule of law to serve its interests.
Many pro-military politicians do their utmost to obtain an influence and control over the army for the aim of coming or continuing in power. At the end of the day, however, they end up misunderstanding the purpose of governing.
Being a military influencial should not be used as a mean for popularly useless pro-military politicians to issue laws that serve to design and build a state that fulfils their personal rather than popular interest. Some of them consider military support or influence as their turn to exercise, but in many cases they abuse the power.
Because his voice is so loud, the militarist tends to overreact, its members hear themselves more than they hear opponents. In a dictatorship ruled country like South Sudan, a country that leans beyond dictatorship, you can hardly hear the voice of the opposition and instead you repeatedly hear the voice of the oppressors and its echo (Dictators).
Since the formation of the Government of Southern Sudan in 2005, Southern Sudan radios and the 2008 launched SSTV ( both public and private ones ) has been playing an essential role in promoting dictatorship ideals and mobilizing the citizens to support pro-government politicians who support and justify the policies of the government under president Salva Kiir Mayardiit ignoring the indisputable fact that a good portion of the South Sudanese people simply disagrees with them. Members and representatives of this opposition are never allowed to present their arguments.
A large portion of society tends to be biased towards the ruler not on account of his ideas and policies but for the sake of becoming affiliated with him and there by acquiring access to illegal benefit and that they would not legitimately otherwise obtain.
President Kiir supported by his elites is trying to advocate and aupport the concept of the ‘ONE PEOPLE ONE NATION’ and that the South Sudanese should raly behind him in support of his policies. In essence, this concept is invalid. In any particular nation across the globe, there are always citizens and politicians who are for or against the ruler. The president must keep in mind that a large portion of society exist that while it certainly loves its country is never the lest averse to his policies.
Salva kiir was a legitimate president of Southern Sudan and not the modern Republic of South Sudan, but any way let us assume his legitimacy. nevertheless, Mr Kiir is now facing new challenges from both within his supporters and his opponents. He has personaly executed the plans to massacre the Nuer people in Juba and continue to marginalise his rival tribes and political opponents and rather than promoting the country’s needs, his supporters who attempted to criminalise any one who disagreed with the president are looking to be rewarded by realising their personal aspirations.
Given the reason that South Sudan is going through difficult and hard transitional time and that the fact that the country has split into two major camps, that one of Salva Kiir which is promoting and advocating for military dictatorship and that of Dr. Riek Machar whose primary responsibility is to establish a free and a Democratic Federal Republic of South Sudan, we must to be sensitive and responsible for our country. Attempting to build and born a state based on the slogan that ‘ONE PEOPLE ONE NATION’ while the president use under a dark corner the concept of ‘RULE FOR LIFE’ is a misguided approach. It would be far better to ensure that the government policies have some degree of concensus rather than the president take over completely the political and the economic policies.
Since the president in the absence of the parliament has the authority to issue laws, the president would be well advised to limit these two laws ( the laws that regulates the economy and political atmosphere of the country )that genuinely and urgently needed by the people. The president should only issue laws on which there in concensus so that they are ensure that they do not favour or strengthen his political status.
The recent National Security Bill which sparked off widespread controversy and subsequently condemned by the president’s political supporters is a clear example of the unwise abuse of power( PLEASE NOTE: THAT I AM NOT ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF THE LEGITIMACY OF THE PRESIDENT’S AUTHORITY TO ISSUE LAWS IN THE FIRST PLACE ).
The concept of military rule is here in South Sudan understood as a winner’s concept where the obsolute ruler is allowed to extend his authority at the expense of the people at large and of his opponents to herein I refered to as losers. In my view, South Sudan does not need winners and losers among its people. We just need to build a successful democratic nation wherein every citizen feels and believes that he/she is responsible for this country and has a challenge in the nation-building-process.
Tor Madira Machier is a South Sudanese student pursuing Law Degree at the University Of Ain Shams in Cairo, Egypt.
He can be reached at : firstname.lastname@example.org or reach him at his twitter account : @TorMadira