The change we believe in is utopia~ Riek and Kirr are two sides of the same coin. Sadly, that coin has no calculable economic value. Instead, it is pegged to social crisis. It is hard to judge a mans heart, but through his actions, you may. For the case of Riek and Kiir, if it is not their individual desires, then it must be the company they keep, that is solely responsible for the ongoing crisis and developmental stagnation in South Sudan. Moreover, this isnt the first time their leaderships have failed the nation. History certainly has a lot to teach regarding credits and flaws associated with their individual and collective leaderships. However, them being politically influential figures in South Sudans political arena, suggest that some measures of accountability weighs heavily above their shoulders. The question is, when will they ever account for the deficits they owe South Sudan? Looking at the serenity of their politics, one can easily be tempted to judge the moral equivalence of the two men, hence induced to pick sides. Given how politics has taken precedence in the last year or so, who can blame the duped individuals? South Sudans politics is now characterised by fear more than ever, as a result of mistrust. The citizens dont trust any form of leadership. For instance, those who support the incumbent government, are doing so primarily because they dont trust their security and well-being in the hands of the government in opposition, and vice versa. Politics is no longer about picking a leader/party that is fully capable of delivering services to all citizens. It is no longer about compensating citizens votes with political concessions/representation. Far from it, it is now all about who can I trust with my safety? A party predominantly governed by the fellow tribesmen is the obvious answer (the sanctuary). The detriment of such politics have resulted in reluctancy of political parties to uphold their moral duties. In other words, politicians have become a lot more incompetent, because the competition with other parties is neutralised by the self-mobilising support coming from the frightened citizens. Other minor political parties that are momentarily incapable of providing security are politically disregarded. Even with the knowledge that among them, could possibly be a party that is capable of altering the current condition for better. To keep the sprit of involuntarily public support alive, the minds of the masses are kept occupied. Political rhetorics and propaganda makes the job much more easier for rivalling political parties. All that they have to do to maintain the support is claim that theyre fighting for a change. They just have to claim that, under my capable leadership, the rival party that youre so frighten of will be annihilated, and I will bring the change you so desire, be it systematic or practical. Such statements are common and are always publicly ululated and not analysed for validity. Furthermore, little is the impact of such statements among the citizens considered. Little is it probably known, that such statements creates the notion of us versus them among the citizens, which set up a counter-productive reality that will take time and resources to painstakingly undo comes future. Its high time that citizens stop and think for themselves. Its about time they question this change. Citizens need to start scrutinising the propaganda and rhetorics and decipher the truth. Its high time that they think as citizens bounded by common history, and not as ordinary political parties sympathisers, of how much theyve been used politically to make ends meet. They need to stop being folly and easily caving into the deceits under the umbrella of change. When a man exposes his nature and claims a change of character only when all odds turned against him, that change should be subject to all possible suspicions. In politics such changes are often misconstrued and praised without scrutiny. The perils of such civic ignorance never fail to manifest. When a politician claimed to have misled in the past, though theyre not directly asking for it, their intentions are not only to be pardoned, but also to have a second, third or even fourth chance of leadership. They make the rhetoric for their supposed changed so sweet and appealing to emotions, that it is publicly perceived and accepted as an action of moral excellence. As if the politicians that claims change, achieved political nirvana through a quintessential process of their disassociation with their old-selves. Sadly, that is not always the case. Change is sometimes a strategy of acquiring possessions (wealth, power and reputation) which the changed-men were initially not in acquisition of. Change comes with intentions of self well-being but dissimulated as pre-requisite for societal betterment. No offence to his relatives, but one can take John Luk for a classical example. So when confronted by such experiences, citizens should question the essence of change. When the government claim that they will bring change, take time into consideration. Ask them, what change should I expect you to bring, when youve ruled South Sudan autonomously for almost a decade and have barely build roads or created jobs? Similarly, when the SPLA-IO preach democracy, question the substance in their democracy. Ask them, youve been a part and parcel of the government of South Sudan for almost ten years yet disenfranchisement occurred, so which democracy are you preaching and why now? Doesnt political lip servicing and impracticality concern you as a citizen? Change is inevitable yes, but it must be brought into effect by the right force, using a right formula. The preached democracy is conniving. The Status-Quo has failed, but it has failed under a collective leadership of people that we still support from both ends of political spectrums. The future and prosperity of South Sudan lies in the new blood. It lies in the hands and minds of the youth. They must set aside their differences and channel their intellects and energies into perpetual peace among themselves and with their neighbours. Youth must realise that the men they are vying for as leaders represents no greater purpose for the country besides doom. Further, the youth must acknowledge that they ways they vying to put their preferred candidates into leadership (tribal politics) is a threat to long-run stability. Upon such realisations can the stalled development have a chance of experiencing a steady forward motion.
Posted on: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 07:17:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015