South Sudan: Governance Arrangements, War, and Peace
Jenik Radon,Sarah Logan
2014-09-22
Abstract:"When elephants fight, it's the grass that suffers." (1) There are several similar versions of this Kenyan proverb, both in Swahili and other African languages, that all describe the same thing: "the feeling of powerlessness in the midst of larger forces." (2) Few sayings so aptly describe the devastating impact that power wrangling, and consequent violence, is currently having on South Sudan's vulnerable and defenseless population. Since mid-December 2013, when civil war broke out in South Sudan between President Salva Kiir's government forces and opposition rebels, led by former Vice President Riek Machar, repeated attempts to reach a negotiated peace settlement have failed. The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), East Africa's eight-country trade bloc, has been facilitating the peace talks, which have been held in Ethiopia--initially in Addis Ababa and then in Bahir Dar. While peace remains elusive and the fighting continues, the urgent humanitarian situation in South Sudan is deteriorating rapidly. The failure to end the ongoing conflict can be attributed to both the numerous and complex causes of the violence, as well as to an apparent lack of political will from either side to end the fighting. This article will first examine the various factors that have contributed to the unfortunate violence that we see in South Sudan today, and will then explore possible ways forward for the country. A reflection on why the world's youngest nation descended into civil war less than three years after its establishment reveals, among other things, the enduring importance of key elements of good governance: effective separation and devolution of powers, appropriate government and electoral systems, the establishment of strong institutions, and good fiscal management. So, too, public participation and ensuring that all voices are heard and represented plays an invaluable role. WHAT CAUSED THE CIVIL WAR IN SOUTH SUDAN? On 15 December 2013, President Kiir, an ethnic Dinka, accused his former Vice President Riek Machar, an ethnic Nuer, of attempting to overthrow him in a coup. It remains unclear whether such a coup attempt actually took place; nevertheless, violence quickly broke out in Juba, the nation's capital. Although often touted as an ethnic war, the role of ethnicity in actually triggering the conflict is uncertain. Of the eleven politicians arrested by the government in connection with the alleged coup, six were Dinkas, two were Nuers, and the other three were from different ethnic groups, thus seemingly negating possible ethnic motivations. (3) Regardless of the initial role of ethnicity in the conflict, as the fighting continued and spread beyond Juba, the violence became increasingly ethnic, largely pitting Dinkas against Nuers. Despite these apparent ethnic divisions, no insurmountable hostility seems to exist between South Sudan's ethnic groups; rather, these divisions are the result of patronage systems that have tended to develop along ethnic lines. Ethnic patronage is understandable, given the natural comfort, ease, and familiarity in working with those with whom one shares common bonds and language. Still, patronage and the access to resources that patronage brings are undoubtedly significant underlying causes of the violence. Accordingly, one could say that "[t]he fault lies not in the DNA of the South Sudanese tribes. It lies with the political leaders who use ethnic patronage to build their power bases; or who incite their ethnic kin to carve out a geographic or political niche." (4) While natural, the inclination to work only with one's own ethnic and linguistic group must be consciously overcome, particularly in diverse populations, such as that of South Sudan. A number of other factors appear to have contributed to the outbreak of violence, which ended the two years of relative peace that South Sudan had enjoyed since the establishment of the country in 2011. …
Sociology,Political Science