27/10/2021
๐ท๐ช๐ช๐จ, ๐ ๐ช๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ซ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐ช๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐?
In the late 2000s, a few years after the passing of Dr. John Garang, a worrying phrase arose among government officials, who were mostly SPLA freedom fighters. The saying was usually in Dinka, but it loosely translates to โA nail driven into a wood using a claw hammer must be dislodged using oneโ The supposed meaning was that the ones who saw the seeds of SPLA rebellion have every right to enjoy the fruits of it harvest whichever way they see fit. Now, this was the time when money was pouring into the country all over the world all over, so, the phrase was used to justify embezzlement and mismanagement of national resources. This mentality is dangerous and immoral in so many ways. Itโs immoral in that soldiers and commanders didnโt fight for all these years so they could hoard national resources for themselves. Our founding father Dr. John Garang, for instance, was offered a well-paying job in the United States as a professor, but he turned it down because he wanted his people freed. He didnโt fight for South Sudan so he could live personally comfortably per se, he did for something bigger than himself, he did it for the marginalized people of South Sudan. The moral aspect of this I-fought-so-I-deserve-it-all mentality is that it equates war heroes with mercenaries. Even if it was true that the people who are now looting the country were the only ones who fought the Northern tyranny, then what you are doing now is just paying yourself. This means that you never fought for freedom or against oppression, you fought for your stomach and other personal gains, which means you are a gun-for-hire by definition. The ideology is also dangerous because once a certain group of people thinks they can identify who fought who didnโt during the rebellion, you are not only dividing the country, but you are creating a self-deserving and entitled generation of leaders.
The reason for this elaborate explanation is that I donโt want young movements to fall into the same pit that has swallowed the SPLM. I believe that movements like PCCA are bringing hope to the people of South Sudan by trying a non-violent approach to address issues facing the country. Although their mission of non-violent is appealing and noble considering the circumstances, it sails very close to this ideology of hero-reward-based system. In their recent conversion with the Dinka community, Abraham Awolich and Dr. Akol talked, among many things, about the forgotten freedom fighters, failures of government, Kiir disloyalty to friends and family, etc. There is no significant error in advocating for Garang's family โnotโ being involved enough in the affairs of this country or William Deng being unemployed and owning no car considering his car saved Salva Kiir's life during the rebellion. All these are valid arguments but not useful in the predicament in which the country finds itself in. Both Akol and Awolich repeatedly tried to assure their audience that they are not bitter comrades who got left out when Kiir served the national dinner but what they say seems to confirm the opposite. I sincerely believe that they are partly doing this for the goodness of their heart, but I think they are failing in showing it to the people of South Sudan.
For a non-violence movement to succeed in ushering in change, you most likely need the majority onboard, and I mean, women, young adults, traders, churches, elders, and most importantly soldiers. If people are going to put their lives at risk, which is inevitable even in a non-violent approach, then you need to give them a very good reason to. What would make a groceries mama in Konykonyo market look down the barrel without fear? I donโt know the answer to that, but I am sure it cannot be because William Deng did a huge favor to the president during the revolution and Kiir forgot to return the favor or whether Dr. Garang's family have their place on the table. Answering that question is the PCCA task. PCCA must find out what the little guy in South Sudan cares about.
Another issue that the PCCA faces whether they know it or not is setting achievable goals. There is a reason why non-violent movements take on small issues first when demanding a change in society. It was salt in India, bread prices in Egypt and France. These are common denominators that unite a lot of people. PCCA needs to find something that brings a lot of South Sudanese together. Pointing out the flaws in the government won't work, especially at this natal stage of the movement, you must start somewhere small. Tackling small problems also has a motivational factor to it. If done very well, you get to win and small wins along the way are very important. If your followers see no progress, the movement will quickly whither before it blooms. In addition, SPLM is a liberation movement, which means that it will also command loyalty, especially from the older generation. This is the party that gave them a country, it doesnโt matter how bad the party has evolved over the years, itโs the devil most South Sudanese know, and it will take a lot more convincing for them to go against the SPLM. People are also naturally afraid of new things; therefore, it is effective to start by addressing small issues before you poke the bear in the eyes.
I am not saying that the issues that Awolich and Akol discussed werenโt important, on the contrary. I have always thought that South Sudan will possibly get into conflict with her neighbor considering the encroachment and stealing of South Sudanese land by countries like Kenya. I also thought that the issue of oil drilling and its effect on the environment and the inhabitants of the Northern part of the country need urgent action. All these need to be addressed but we must start somewhere small. After all, the only way to eat an elephant is piece by piece. If any member of the PCCA is reading this and you genuinely want change and not because you are angry for not being invited to the party by the president, then you might want to re-evaluate your approach.
