The author of this article says that concentrating power in the hands of one person has more disadvantages than advantages. He says the president must be subject to the law and answerable to the people.
In the book Why Nations Fail, the writer refers to the condition that South Sudan is currently in as a ‘vicious circle.’ This vicious circle and its opposite, the ‘virtuous circle,’ are a set of complex events and conditions that reinforce themselves in a feedback loop.
In South Sudan, it is characterized by a condition the minority elite benefit at the expense of the majority poor. The institutions in the country were created and function in a manner that is favorable to whomever is in power and serves only his or her interests. Moreover, policies and decrees that are issued are mainly to shore up the power of the elites, rather than to improve the welfare of the society.
While the majority of the country relies on foreign aid for most of their services and infrastructural development, the elites are busy trying to divide the power in the country among themselves so that they can continue to enjoy the lion’s share of the resources.
Though many reasons have been given for the fighting that started in December 2013, I strongly believe that the root cause can be narrowed down to this vicious circle that has taken root in the country. And unless the institutions that support it are dismantled, the peace that has been signed will not hold.
One of the institutional mistakes that we have in our country is the all-powerful president. There are, of course, various reasons cited for why the president of the Republic of South Sudan should have the powers he does. The main one given is for security. In South Sudan, security is the vague answer you will be given if you try to ask about your rights or inquire about government finances (especially when it comes to military spending). Any criticism of the president can be hushed with this simple statement and then the person asking may be arrested, tortured or even killed.
Despite the fact that security is used as an excuse to quell any voice that disagrees with the government, actual insecurity is very high. Cases of murders and robberies in Juba are through the roof. Although the capital is fill of police, soldiers, president guards, national security personnel and other organized forces, they are mostly found around the VIPs’ offices and residences, leaving the majority of the citizens defenseless. Some people in the public attribute the insecurity to members of the armed forces, but that is yet to be concretely proven.
Concentrating power in the hands of one person has more disadvantages than advantages. The main disadvantages are poverty, corruption and insecurity. Let me start off with insecurity.
When all the powers are concentrated on one person, it creates envy and jealousy for that power. This hunger and envy for the position of power can lead to many rebellions and fighting among those who believe that they should be the ones wielding the power. That was evident during the struggle for independence and even after independence. One of the major sources of disagreement during the peace negotiations handled by IGAD and IGAD Plus in Addis Ababa has been the issue of power sharing.
The insecurities caused by concentrating power in the one pair of hands are even greater when the person wielding power doesn’t wield it absolutely, as is the case in South Sudan. While the president has vast powers, according to the constitution, he does not have absolute power and control over the many generals who command their own tribal battalions. This is also evident in the SPLA-IO, where some of the allies of their leader have openly disagreed with him.
In the case where power is not held absolutely, the person wielding the power tends to try to shore up his support by pleasing his friends and allies, which leads to high levels of corruption and abuse of power.
The president of the Republic of South Sudan has to please many people in the decisions that he makes. This is done so that he can have the loyalty of the person or the community where that person comes from. However, that is a clear disadvantage to the people on the ground who do not see the fruits of this ‘pleasing.’
Many leaders, ministers and governors are thus chosen based on how much power or influence they have in their respective communities. And in order to avoid losing the loyalty of the so-called leader, the president is forced to overlook their mistakes, mismanagement and lack of skills – and, of course, any corrupt practices.
Despite the fact that no one has ever been prosecuted in connection with corruption in this country, it is common knowledge that corruption is everywhere. The famous ‘dura’ saga scandal that cost the country millions of dollars and many other kickbacks that the so-called leaders take all go unpunished so as not to displease the president’s allies.
Unfortunately, this costs the government a lot of money and leads to my next point: poverty. When the resources of the government are eaten by the few elites, the majority of the people suffer and die.
The image of a South Sudanese in East Africa is that of a rich person with plenty of dollars to spare. This is evident by the big, expensive cars that the children of our leaders drive in Nairobi, Kampala and other parts of the region. However, this affluence is not seen in the marginal parts of the country where NGOs are busy donating food to the hungry. It does not take a genius to add the two together and deduce that our resources are being spent in our neighboring countries.
Some of the poverty can be attributed to poor planning and the mismanagement by the leaders, some of whom have no results to show for their work. Some blame the mismanagement on insufficient human resources. But I do not believe that we lack the personnel to run the ministries properly. I have met South Sudanese who work for multinational companies in management positions and produce results worthy of their positions. However, such personnel are overlooked due to their lack of political experience or because they are not perceived as loyal. Instead, more ‘loyal’ people are chosen, who then mismanage the funds without any consequences and waste the resources that could life this country out of poverty and hunger.
This hunger and poverty in turn drive the people to commit crimes to feed themselves and their dependents, which increases insecurity. So what is the solution? How can we break the vicious cycle that has taken hold of our country and threatens to destroy it?
The write of How Nations Fail said that it takes a radical/external change in the society to break the cycle. Such changes are usually hard to achieve, as is evidenced in many African countries. Although many countries in Africa were at par with developed countries, such as South Korea during the independence wave of the 1960s, they are still lounging in poverty and underdevelopment decades later. This is because the elites in those countries now wield such powers that it is difficult to remove them.
In South Sudan, however, the president wields this power. With his vast constitutional powers, the president can transfer the power to the people. However, he must be willing to lose the power to the people in order to gain power from the people.
This sounds confusing but it is not that confusing. The president must be willing to give the power to the people through vast civic education on their rights, such as speech, association and media and empower the judiciary to the level that they are free, fair and have authority over even the organized government. And through the upcoming constitutional reforms, the president must reduce the powers of his office such that the powers to elect and remove officials are given back the people unconditionally, as well as making the president subject to the law and answerable to the people.
He can also spearhead changes that will ensure that the president and the government are subject to parliamentary and public scrutiny, without fear of intimidation and arrest.
Only then will the leaders heed their population’s demands and stop corruption and mismanagement. Otherwise, we will remain in an eternal cycle of poverty, corruption and insecurity until such a time that the people will take the power back for themselves. And as history has shown, when the people are forced to take the power back from the elites on their own, it is rarely peaceful, and neither does it end well for the elites.
The views expressed in ‘opinion’ articles published by Radio Tamazuj are solely those of the writer. The veracity of any claims made are the responsibility of the author, not Radio Tamazuj.