opinionBy Elhag Paul
Manyok equivocates unnecessarily to defend the indefensible. His arguments are not only porous but lack any evidence. Although he strategically deploys abuse and poorly unstructured arguments to distort and confuse readers in order to distract attention, I wish to state that I am not going to be distracted by abuse from pointing out the abuses of the Jieng. Neither will I resort to verbal violence as this is not in my character. Thus I am going to respond to Manyok's article (ElHag Paul's Soliloquy and misguided posture to provoke ethnic strife: A rebuttal, Feb/11/2013 SSN) with respect and reasonably measured arguments.
In trying to persuade readers that the criticism levelled against the government of South Sudan is a cover for inspiring ethnic strife, Manyok writes, "One clearly sees Elhag Paul disgorging hate among the various ethnicities in South Sudan particularly the rest against the Dinka people. Admittedly, there is very little substance in his latest article except, mostly, hateful bons more aimed at cajoling and swooning his runners. .............. Even as Mr Paul's article dangerously threaten peaceful co-existence among citizens, there is........." This unsubstantiated allegations flies in the face of facts and raises serious issues.
Does Manyok and his tribesmen want the people of South Sudan to put up with their oppression? Unpacking his statement tells us that the Jieng are in denial of their atrocious behaviour and oppressive regime. As far as Manyok is concerned things are OK in South Sudan and people should just shut up and put up. Well things are certainly not OK in the country and some of us are not going to put up with this Jieng nonsense. We will talk and write about Jieng abuse factually as long as the Jieng refuse to change.
Manyok needs to understand that it is the Jieng who are disgorging hate. They are the ones responsible for abusing the powers of the state of RSS and by extension the people of South Sudan and not the other way round. This is yet again the projection of Jieng tribalism onto their victims. What comes out of Manyok's argument is evidence of Jieng denial of their atrocious behaviour. This denial is just a stage in a process of change. Whether the Jieng like it or not they will have to change and the process has started. In management theory the transition to change has a number of stages through which organisations or people have to go through for change to happen. These are excitement, shock, denial, realisation, coming to terms etc.
For three decades the Jieng have been so excited by the power they found in SPLM Oyee and this made them to think that they could do as they wish. With the signing of the peace in 2005 and subsequently the independence of South Sudan in July 2011 they became so intoxicated with state power to the extent that they became blind to realities. When opposition to Jieng mismanagement of the country began to develop, they were shocked and could not believe the resistance to their abuses. In denial they switched into projecting their abuse to the victims and at the same time boasting, "We are born to rule." "We liberated you." The Jieng can not comprehend that SPLM Oyee has no ability and skills to govern the country. Hence like ostriches they bury their heads in denial creating a stasis and promoting unhealthy environment in the country.
Now whether the Jieng like it or not they must change by moving into the final stages of change i.e. realisation, acceptance and adjustment to fit into social realities of South Sudan for peaceful co-existence. If the Jieng continue to stick to their present position of denial then events such as the Arab spring will make them change.
The racist Boers (whites) in South Africa with all their technology and power were stubborn like the Jieng in perpetuating atrocious behaviours, but they were made to change against their will. The racist whites all over the world too are being forced to confront their racism. So who are the Jieng not to confront their horrendous behaviour? Who are the Jieng not to change? Who are the Jieng to believe that they can abuse others with impunity? It is advisable and in their interest to embrace peaceful change by making the change themselves. Change is a must and the Jieng have no option on this. So, Manyok and the learnt Jieng need to become true agents of change for the greater good.
Manyok sarcastically writes, "Mr Paul seems to suggest that every South Sudanese is a victim of Jieng, therefore he is my (Manyok) victim! Is it possible that Elhag Paul and his runners do not see how ridiculous their imaged Jieng-engendered victimhood is? Such is the claim and extent of the absurdity of his anti-Dinka rhetoric. If the author valued credibility and thus be considered as convincing, could he not have aimed at more constructive dialogue?" It is clear that Manyok in his mentality of denial has no scope of stepping into the shoe of the oppressed to understand the world of the oppressed South Sudanese and that includes me. He can not imagine how a South Sudanese can be a victim of the Jieng government in Juba. He questions the people's victimhood with such condescending arrogance of the "Born to rule".
Without any questions, like the rest of the South Sudanese, I am a victim of the Jieng government in Juba. A victim according to Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary is "a person who has been attacked, injured or killed as a result of crime." In line with this definition, let me now explain why I am a victim like the rest of South Sudanese.
Since the inception of SPLM and the coming of "SPLA Dinka soldier" to my village, they committed unimaginable crimes ranging from rape to killings for no reason at all. They disrupted the structure of social life in the village through abuse of the gun. Then from 2005 to the present, the Jieng government in Juba is looting state coffers depriving South Sudanese of development. For example, no health service; no meaningful education service; no employment programmes or creation of jobs; no food security, no human security etc. In all these South Sudanese including me have become victims of the Jieng government. Hundred of South Sudanese died from famine, malaria, diarrhoea, typhoid and so on and in addition to these our human rights have been taken away. How then does Manyok not see the victimhood of South Sudanese people and my personal one arising from the psychological fall out of these momentous Jieng failures? Does this need rocket science? I am sure that Manyok could easily see and understand these things if he only could shade his denial and empathises with the others as fellow human beings with feelings.
As with regards to the government being a Jieng government I have already sufficiently addressed it in my previous article.
Manyok argues that "(Elhag) asserting that a president's tribe is a fair game when s/he doesn't uphold the constitution is an odious rationale proffered for the convenience of the time.
This is because the converse of such statement is false and can not stand. Indeed, when such a person, say, for example, a president, fails to 'uphold the constitution for the interest of all members' such a leader/president would be held responsible according to the laws of that country because as his actions would be deemed unfair and illegitimate. But to overlook that and hold his tribe responsible instead, as ElHag Paul is suggesting would not only ensure a disastrous outcome but would reflect poorly on any claim of advancement/civilisation in such society."
Manyok's argument could be effective and workable in a truly democratic state and not a Dinkocracy. South Sudan is a totalitarian state under the grip of the Jieng. This is a fact and I know very well that the Jieng do not want this pointed out.
Manyok's thinking on how the constitution should work theoretically is correct. However, he fails to apply this theory to the context of South Sudan political reality. As explained in my previous article, the reason why things are not working in South Sudan is because the constitution is redundant. President Kiir and the SPLM Oyee (Jieng organisation) disabled the constitution by using Jieng domination of the government machinery. It is practically impossible to hold president Kiir to account to the people because the Jieng control all the organs of the government via SPLM Oyee.
To put it another way, the system in South Sudan is technically one party rule and the ruling party is the Jieng organisation making every decision in the country. Manyok can philosophise as much as he wants with abstract theory but the reality that SPLM Oyee is a Jieng organisation and it is the one running the show can not be explained away or ignored in the final analysis and this is the deciding factor of who is responsible for the mess in South Sudan. With this said, let us not forget that the Jieng are in the stage of denial and Manyok is not any different.
Manyok further argues that "as South Sudanese we must be grateful that Dr Garang led/ guided our liberation aspiration with absolutely perspicacious brilliance. It is totally absurd for anybody, who may stake a claim to be a functioning brain, to suggest that Dr Garang as leader, was fighting for a united Sudan. The Sudan was already united and it was not possible to go to war only to unite it - see appendix (I) below for Dr Garang's pictorial illustration of Sudan's possible modalities to the country's conflict in form of Venn diagram."
Manyok in his denial mode shamelessly dismisses Dr Garang's political stance. He has the audacity to claim that Dr Garang was fighting for a separate South Sudan. Let us read the below quote.
"Our believe in the Sudanese Unity and territorial integrity is axiomatic, that is, it is principled position. In our Manifesto published 31 July 1983 we said in very unequivocal terms, and I quote, It must be reiterated that the principle objective of the SPLM/SPLA is not separation for the South.
The South is an integral and inseparable part of the Sudan. Africa has been fragmented sufficiently enough by colonialism and neo-colonialism and its further fragmentation can only be in the interest of her enemies.
The separatist attitude that has developed in the South since 1955 has caught the imagination of the backward areas in Northern Sudan. Separatists Movements have already emerged with guerrillas fighting in Western and Eastern Sudan. If left unchecked these separatist Movements in the South, East, West coupled with stubborn determination of repressive minority clique regime in Khartoum to hang onto power at all costs will lead to the total disintegration of the Sudan.
The imminent, latent and impending disintegration and fragmentation of the Sudan is what the SPLM/A aims to stop by developing and implementing a consistent democratic solution to both the nationality and religious questions within the context of a United New Sudan. This was in 1983. Our position remains the same."
Can Manyok guess who the speaker was? Just in case he does not know, let me volunteer. The eloquent speaker here was Dr Garang in his book, edited by Mansour Khalid, titled 'John Garang Speaks' published in 1987 by KPI in London on pages 253 and 254. With this crystal clear evidence, how does Manyok want to advance his absurd argument? Who is inventing arguments here? Is it Elhag Paul or the denier Manyok?
Manyok again makes reference to the Venn diagram without putting it in context. If Manyok's explanation of the Venn diagram of Dr Garang was to be taken as Dr Garang's stance, then actually this would portray Dr Garang as a political speculator, a man who did not know what he wanted. A man who was gambling with the fate of 8 million people (South Sudanese). Worse still, it makes him an indecisive person without clear vision. Is this really the Dr Garang that the world knows? Sorry, I can not buy this argument. Dr Garang was a decisive person. He categorically chose unity over secession. Hence, his infamous uttering, "Our first bullets were fired at the separatists." Dr Garang's Venn diagram contrary to Manyok's understanding is evidence of his unionist position.
I had the privilege in the summer of 1996 to attend a session at the House of Lords in UK where Dr Garang lectured the thinking behind the Venn diagram. According to Dr Garang, the diagram shows the three possible scenarios that could obtain from the political situation in the country at the time. Out of the three scenarios Dr Garang was clear about his commitment to the united Sudan option. He stressed that if marginalisation was removed and the country became multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-racial there was no reason why the Sudan could not become a great nation and that was his choice.
He did not subscribe to either the confederation or the separation options. In all the questions posed to him, he stuck to his unionist position. So, what is Manyok playing at? Who does he want to mislead here? The obsession with wanting to promote Dr Garang as Father of the Nation is not going to hold. The overwhelming evidence in the public domain says otherwise. A diehard unionist who lynched separatist left and right to be Father of the separate Nation, what a convoluted thinking?
Penning off, the current noise that the Jieng make in order for the president to be separated from his tribe even when the tribe is the force behind his presidency is nothing but denial. As the beneficiaries of this system it suits them to prevaricate. Obviously, not all the Jieng agree with the system but the overwhelming majority are happy with the status quo and this is what counts. When we fought the Arabs, we did not say that it was Omer Bashir alone who was bad and the rest of the Arabs were good. We generalised them on basis of their behaviour and mentality towards South Sudanese. When Africans fought colonialism they did not say it was the colonial governments that were bad with white people being good. The system and the force responsible for maintenance of the system are equally responsible for the outcome. So president Kiir is not acting in a vacuum without support of the Jieng. It is the unconditional support of the majority Jieng that allows him to abuse the people of South Sudan.
[Truth hurts but it is also liberating]