Voices from Western Bahr el Ghazal on the call for Federalism in South Sudan July 12, 2014 Since its independence in July 2011, South Sudan has been marred by marginalization, favoritism, nepotism, corruption, lack of service distribution, and unequal distribution of wealth and power. These have been leading into continuous cycle of ethnic clashes, political unrest, lack of peaceful coexistence, and hindered all efforts of nation building as well as economic development in the country. The recent conflict that erupted in December 2013 has clearly shown the hegemony of some groups and the victimization of others. This has triggered the call for federalism by the most affected segments within the society. The call for federation is not new to South Sudanese as has echoed in the voices of our leaders since the 1947 Juba Conference. Even now the constitutional review process is going hand in hand with the process of reviewing the governance system and federalism is one of the systems that has been suggested and discussed. To this effect we, concerned community members of Western Bahr el Ghazal State, do hereby add our voices in support of the call for federalism in South Sudan as an alternative to the current semi-decentralized system. We believe that federalism is ideal for South Sudan because it: 1. Promotes separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judiciary to make governance transparent to the citizens. 2. Empowers States to have say over their own affairs and become able to take decisions on economic, social, and political aspects that directly affect them. States will be empowered to decide on what economic development plan they should pursue, as well how to allocate resources to suit their unique conditions by involving different ethnic groups in decision making process to empower people and strengthen the unity of the nation. When the different ethnic groups are involved in decision making processes on economic development, education, heath care, etc., that will empower them and make them more accountable and as well stakeholders in their current affairs and for generations to come. 3. Minimizes interference of the national government into the affairs of local governments as well prevents it from utilizing state resources in projects that do not serve the locals. 4. Allows states to become innovative which in turn will lead to development based on people’s needs, available local resources, and future aspirations. 5. Simplifies mandates of services provision between federal government, states, and the counties, with the states having upper hands on local socio-political and economic development. 6. Encourages local creativity, independency and facilitates collective efforts for independency and shared vision for groups and communities. 7. Clarifies line of accountability and shared responsibility between state officials and the populace. 8. Minimizes impacts of ethnic and/or political disputes at the federal level on states, counties and towns 9. Eliminates and reduces ethnic tensions, ethnic control and marginalization. 10. Encourages citizens to return to States of origin and contribute to the local efforts of social and political development, leading to the true meaning of taking services to people Most importantly, federalism as a system is the key solution to the constructed ethno-centric power struggle and grievances that South Sudan is facing right now. The current opponents of federalism equate it to disunity and further ethnic alienation. However, within the current system, a lot of grievances are being expressed especially regarding power and wealth sharing and ethnic marginalization that has led to the current ethno-political crisis and viciously destabilized the country. However, we believe our country needs a system that fosters unity within diversity. Most important a system that builds an inclusive community and that promotes development equally across all communities. The changes introduced above dismiss the opponents of federalism claim that since South Sudan has a high illiteracy rate, federal system would not be successful. According to those opposing federalism, they suggest that South Sudanese should wait longer to improve literacy rate then federal system can be implemented. Delaying the implementation will continue to grant benefits to the few individuals on the top who control the wealth of the nation and will continue to play divide and rule tactics using state economic power as well as identity politicking to remain in power. Secondly, the argument that the current crisis with the SPLM in Opposition should be resolved first and then deal with federalism later is problematic, because governance is one of the major issues that led to the current crisis and therefore solving it to the core would help us prevent reoccurrences of similar crisis in the future. The current centralized system and its constitution that gives super powers to the president to remove elected governors and other state constitutional officials and interfere in state affairs are some of the reasons that led to the crisis. Moreover, in the current system, there is no clear separation of powers between executive, legislative, and judiciary. The executive has been given absolute powers over all the branches of the government and therefore diminishes decentralization as well as democratic progress. Third, the argument that South Sudan is still backward economically and lacks basic infrastructure, characterized by ethnic groupings, mistrust and therefore the current system is the only option is completely unacceptable. Federalism will give states powers to draw their economic plans and allocate resources more efficiently than centralized distribution of resources, whereby Juba (the center) dictates how to use resources without proper understanding of local population’s needs and desires. Such centralized policies may lead to waste of resources by misappropriating funds and allocating it based on interests of certain groups in the states who support and ally with interest groups in the central government and leading political parties. All in all federalism remains the demand of the people of South Sudan and history of events proves that. It is the general desire of the people that should be respected and addressed. Accordingly, as found in several federation constitutions, the federal system of governance is ideal for South Sudan at this juncture to address the current crisis and open avenues for a better future.
Posted on: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 09:58:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015