Summary
The SPLM is not a mere name as many have understood it but it is a political, social, and economic philosophy that is a modification of pure socialism. All South Sudanese have an interest in the name and the communities recognize it in their lives and own it.
All those who were fighting for the liberation struggle have claimed the name SPLM as a common inheritance from liberation. The ‘SPLMism’ is the ideology behind the liberation of South Sudan and it supports political and economic democracy. The SPLM as a name aims to implement the ideology of the Movement through a reformist and democratic approach to achieve a socio-economic and political system that is different from the old Sudan.
The only way of resolving the SPLM problem is to either allow all South Sudanese to use it in the names of their political parties if they wish like the organization that believes in Jesus Christ uses the Church in their names or create a national SPLM heritage center where all South Sudanese go to pay homage to the martyrs that died in the liberation war. Otherwise, no serious political organization can risk committing political suicide by leaving out SPLM in their names.
Introduction
An ideology is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. An ideology is a set of beliefs or philosophies attributed to a person or group of persons, especially those held for reasons that are not purely epistemic in which practical elements are as prominent as theoretical ones. The process of production of meanings, signs, and values in social life. Looking at this definition, we can say that the SPLM fits in this description and we can say it is the ideology as we shall understand more in this discussion.
The SPLM
The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLM/SPLA) began as the liberation Movement made up of both political and armed wings. Since its inception, the SPLM/A has been alternating between unity and breakups into several factions whenever its leaders wanted to take a major stride towards a certain direction or ideologically. The conflict within the SPLM that always involves the SPLA since 1983 up to date has been premised on ideological differences though the masses are always misinformed that a certain leader or leaders are power hungry. Ordinary South Sudanese and the armed members have been made to believe that the fights in the SPLM are always about power struggles within the Movement or the Party.
However, critical analysis of the conflict within the SPLM that automatically involves the SPLA and now the South Sudan People’s Defence Forces (SSPDF) has been on ideological differences and the failure to understand the nature of the SPLM as an organization. The SPLM is not a mere name as many have understood it but it is a political, social, and economic philosophy that is a modification of pure socialism.
The instances where ideological differences became apparent in the history of the South Sudanese struggle for a better future and the Country.
The SPLM Ideological wars
First, the disagreement between the remnants of the Anya-Anya II with the SPLM/A was on the question of whether the war would be defined as liberation for South Sudan or for the united Sudan, which was resolved by force with the defeat of the separatists though it left a trail of suffering at the South Sudan-Ethiopian Border. The Nuer Communities along the border of Ethiopia and other politicians who were deemed to be allied to the Anya-Anya II remnants who objected to the New Sudan ideology paid the highest price.
Secondly, the 1991 war that broke out between the two leaders of the SPLM/A later divided the SPLM/A into two factions, Nasir and Torit, had its roots in ideological differences. The leaders of the Nassir Faction were calling for an end to dictatorship within the SPLM/A so that the massive violation of human rights was ended and to ensure the respect of human rights, the rule of law, and internal democracy. Instead of addressing issues that caused the 1991 conflict peacefully or through dialogue as it was done in Rumbek in 2004, the Torit Faction resorted to the use of force which became disastrous as it resulted in the death of thousands of innocent Southern Sudanese. In 1994, the demands by the Nassir Faction to address the issues of human rights violations and the need for democracy within the SPLM were addressed when the military administration was separated from the civil administration.
The need for the right to self-determination was acknowledged by the Torit Faction as the Late Dr. John Garang was able to openly acknowledge that Dr. Riek Machar Teny, the leader of Nasir Faction, was right. Late Dr. Garang was aware that the conflict between him and Dr. Machar was premised on the ideological differences between the two of them. Late Dr. Garang never said that Dr. Machar was wrong in his claim of weaknesses in the SPLM/A but only blamed him for starting the conflict at the time when the SPLM/A was on the verge of winning the war against the Sudanese government and not because he was wrong in demanding for reforms within the Movement.
Nonetheless, given the nature of the SPLM/A, which was a military organization and not interested in the peaceful resolution of conflict, Dr. Machar and his colleagues were pushed into the position of self-defense. Otherwise, they were going to languish in prison or would have died like other commanders like Benjamin Bol Akok, Makur Aleyou, Malath Lueth, Bol Akook, and many others who died under unknown circumstances for disagreeing with Garang on the mission and vision of the Movement.
The SPLM/A under Dr. Garang from 1983 to 2004 did not take well all forms of constructive criticism. Dr. Garang only solved conflict after the SPLM/A went the hard way or through conflicts. In other words, he did not have a peaceful way of dealing with the concerns raised by some leaders. One of the best attributes that Garang had although he was not democratic is that he was a flexible politician. He could easily realize a conflict, address some weaknesses, and bring his political opponents along if he found it more destructive to kill them than compromise. It was at a later stage that Garang realized that for the SPLM/A to survive, dialogue and teamwork were the only way forward and the basis of the strength of the SPLM/A.
It was out of this realization that Garang accepted the dialogue that saved the SPLM/A from destruction. Had he resorted to using force against the Yei Faction which was majorly comprised of leaders from the Bahr el Ghazal region and headed by the current President Salva Kiir who disagreed with him on personal differences in 2004 and the SPLM/A would have completely collapsed. Fortunately, the SPLM/A Yei dispute was amicably resolved in Rumbek in the same year. We may say that Garang learned from the break-up of the SPLM/A in 1991 and he did not want to put the Movement in another crisis that would have returned the conflict in Sudan to zero level with the massive loss of southerners.
As many analyses have however shown, the main reason for the conflict of the SPLM/A in Yei being resolved amicably was because it did not have a basis in the ideological differences. The Yei conflict was just over the seat of the Deputy Chairperson of the SPLM/A that Garang was about to take away from Commander Salva Kiir Mayardit and allocate to another person. The conflict within the SPLM/A in Yei was therefore easier to resolve since it was not based on ideological differences and there was no fear of serious fundamental changes that would have taken place in terms of the structures and management of the Movement. Rather, the conflict was not interfering with the status quo of the Movement.
Thirdly, after the independence, in December 2013, the political struggle between President Salva Kiir and Vice President Riek Machar that was rooted in ideological differences concerning state building resulted in deadly violence throughout the country where hundreds of thousands of people died. The violence was substantially ended with the signing of the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan in 2018. As the conflict in South Sudan in 2013 was a result of ideological differences, the issues were later addressed in the peace agreement;
The agreement then addresses issues of public importance such as the constitutional parliamentary democracy, the system of government and electoral system; the establishment of a permanent ethnic power-sharing equation in the security sector and to ensure that the security sector is professional and following the law, with clear command and structure, after the unification and regularization process. The others were the issue of a permanent constitution, financial sector reforms, peace, healing, transitional justice, reparations, and power-sharing based on equal and equitable power-sharing.
In other words, there is a need for reviewing the formula of power-sharing at state and local levels as provided in the R-ARCSS, and base it on the principle of proportionality with the principle of minority veto or mutual veto, to protect ethnic minorities from disenfranchisement. The Revitalized Agreement in Article 1.4.12 provides that there should be a reduction in the number of legislative positions and the size of the public service per the population data. The Revitalized Agreement further provides that there is a need for entrenching the principles of constitutionalism, rule of law, equality, and justice, and establishing presidential term limits as defining features of South Sudan’s democracy.
The South Sudan conflict of 2013 was also the result of ideological differences or the lack of a clear ideology in South Sudan. Like the conflict of 1991 when the SPLA/M broke up, the South Sudan conflict of 2013 was very disastrous. The war as a result of ideological differences is always destructive as it leads to fundamental change in the existing set-up of the system. The reason the SPLM is a problem in South Sudan is because it is the ideology itself though we have failed to realize this and only view the SPLM as a mere name.
Why the SPLM is an Ideology but not as a mere name
The SPLM like Christianity or the Church, which is the Christian’s philosophy or ideology, the SPLM is the South Sudanese ideology. Christianity, which is a major religion stems from the life, teachings, and death of Jesus of Nazareth. Christianity or the Church began as an association of believers in the Jewish community of Roman Palestine who were the followers of Christ, the Son of God. The Church began as the universal Church or Catholic Church with clear teachings of Jesus Christ which became part of the lives of Christians or the people of the way.
As the Church was not run by Jesus Christ but by human beings, the Catholic Church became too corrupt. Consequently, some leaders of the Catholic Church began to agitate for radical reforms within the Church but the leaders of the Catholic Church were not tolerant and decided to summarily dismiss or excommunicate them. After they were dismissed from the Catholic Church, leaders like Martin Luther King did not go and sit idly but they broke away and formed their own Church out of the original Church of Christ. They set up their new Churches with the same setup though with some modified Catholic Church values and the suffix “Church” at the end of every name of their new Churches.
Churches such as Adventism, Anabaptism, Anglicanism, Baptists, Lutheranism, Methodism, Moravianism, Pentecostalism, Plymouth Brethren, Quakerism, Reformed, and Waldensianism etc were formed with the word Church at the end of their names. Currently, there are 37 million churches in the world with 34,000 Christian denominations with their names ending with the word Church or Churches. What is the problem? Why should the breakaway groups or Churches from the bad original organizations carry the name Church and the practice of Christianity with them? Why?
The answer is simply that the Church is not the name per se but it is an ideology enshrined in the values of the Church. The Church is a philosophy or ideology of Christianity that takes the followers to their destiny. The Church is the House of God or it is the way to heaven. Jesus Christ himself states that he is the way, the truth, and the life. The Church is the House of God and anybody who wants to go to God or Heaven must be taught the values of Christianity in the Church and baptized into the Community of God that believes in Christianity through the Church.
From the above discussion, we can say that the SPLM is not just a name per se but it is an ideological belief of South Sudanese leaders and communities and they are members directly or indirectly. When I say indirectly, I mean that some individual South Sudanese became members of the SPLM by default. The SPLM is viewed as the original ideological South Sudaneseism. Thus, those individuals who defected and joined the opposition out of impulse or out of adventure but did not get what they wanted in opposition, always defected and go back to the SPLM while saying that they decided to return to the Mother Party. Some even regret and apologize for leaving the SPLM in the first place.
The SPLM is considered by many South Sudanese as the ideological basis or mother of all other parties. This is why those who left the SPLM and joined the opposition are viewed as those searching for position only or are betrayers. All these show that the SPLM is more than a name. It is not just a name per se but it is an ideology as it represents the set of beliefs or philosophies of South Sudanese that they attribute to the ideas of justice, equality, respect for human dignity, and advancement of human rights and fundamental freedoms. South Sudanese communities believe that the SPLM is their Movement and their social contract, which is the cornerstone of social justice equality, and democracy. The SPLM according to South Sudanese is the foundation for a united, peaceful, and prosperous South Sudan. This is what is summarized as one people, one nation.
The name SPLM has developed into an ideological concept. No South Sudanese political party can attract a large number of followers unless it bears the name SPLM. Today the following SPLM factions exist like churches: SPLM-DC (Democratic Change, 2009–present); SPLM–N (North, 2011–present); SPLM-IG (In Government, 2013–present); SPLM-IO (In-Opposition, 2013–present); SPLM-FD (Freed Detainees, 2015–present); and R-SPLM. There are some new parties formed such as the Revivalist Party which is intended to revive the SPLM. Although the SPLM as a party has not adhered to one consistent ideology since 1983 as many factions exist, it has been described as being on the left of center ideologically speaking with similar elements to social democracy.
As I have stated in the title of this work, the SPLM is not a mere name as many have understood it but it is a political, social, and economic philosophy that is a modification of pure socialism. Being in some form of socialism, the SPLM or SPLMism as the ideology behind the liberation of South Sudan supports political and economic democracy. The SPLM as a name aims to implement the ideology of the Movement through a reformist and democratic approach to achieve a socio-economic and political system that is different from the old Sudan.
The SPLM under a social liberal framework is in practice a social democracy that takes the form of socially managed welfare capitalism through partial public ownership, economic interventionism from the State, and policies promoting social equality. In this way, SPLMism is a response to the ills of the old Sudan as it is a commitment to developing a South Sudanese version of representative and participatory democracy that was not enjoyed under the system of old Sudan. The aim of the SPLM is the indigenous ideology developed out of the existing ideologies in the world to bring corrective social justice by curbing inequality, eliminating the oppression of underprivileged groups, eradicating poverty, and upholding universally accessible public services such as child care, education, elderly care, health care, and workers’ compensation. The ideology of SPLMism economically supports income redistribution and regulating the economy in the public interest as a way of correcting the ills of Sudan.
Conclusion
The SPLM is not a mere name as many have understood it but it is a political, social, and economic philosophy that is a modification of pure socialism. The SPLM philosophy of taking towns to people means taking service to the people which is the summary of the policy of every political party that must capture the attention of the people. It is an ideology itself based on the traditional setting of South Sudanese. All South Sudanese have an interest in the names and it is the communities who recognize it in their lives and own it.
The only way of resolving the SPLM problem and the problem of South Sudan is either to allow all South Sudanese to use it in the names of their political parties if they wish like the way Christians use the term CHURCH in their names or establish the national SPLM Heritage Centre of Nationalism where all South Sudanese should go to pay homage to the martyrs that died in liberation war at the end of every year.
The Parliament will then pass the law prohibiting all political parties from using the SPLM in the names of their parties. Otherwise, no serious political organization that hopes to control the grassroots can risk committing political suicide by omitting the SPLM in their name.
The writer is a member of the Transitional National Legislative Assembly (TNLA) representing Cueibet County in Lakes State on the ticket of the SPLM-IO. He is a lawyer who specializes in good governance, constitutional and customary law, and human rights. He can be reached via nhomngekjuol@gmail.com.
The views expressed in ‘opinion’ articles published by Radio Tamazuj are solely those of the writer. The veracity of any claims made is the responsibility of the author, not Radio Tamazuj.