The Normalization of Nepotism in South Sudan

Lately, ethnic and ideological sectarianism is vigorously swallowing decent social values, particularly South Sudanese, and is replacing them with foreign indecent ones; above all, the introduction and implied normalization of nepotism. This particularly unacceptable practice needs immediate denunciation before it matures and grows roots in South Sudan, for it breeds injustice, violence, and attributes to countless factors that impede economic progress in many struggling countries.

In clearly envisioned countries, equal access to information about available opportunities is a constitutional requirement for employers, including government and the private sector. Failure to comply normally means unexceptional counter retribution dictated by the constitution. If other governments can do this, the government of South Sudan should likewise be able to perfectly impose similar laws to protect South Sudanese from themselves, with proper monitoring executive force in place. Namely, an independent and empowered judiciary system, a nationally recognized commission of employment, and a respected police force to ensure compliance can resolve this matter. Such regulatory application will end the current countrywide complains of inequality.

Similarly, when citizens of any country are equal subjects of one supreme national constitution and are uncompromisingly governed by it, that country is most likely peaceful and destined to its potential; but if the constitution is often compromised by ethnic and/or ideological interests, like what is happening in South Sudan, that country will most definitely undergo periodical violence aggravated by injustices of nepotism. Hence, every attempt to develop such a country is thwarted by insecurity due to recurring violence and intensified mistrust of government institutions by its citizenry and potential investors. Leave alone the loss of human resource that could contribute to building the country’s economy. The current armed and political unrest is a perfect example.

 Nonetheless, while nepotism undeniably serves household or individual interests in the short run, the selfish practice actually deprives employers, investors and even government institutions from best-suited contenders. Moreover, it prolongs frictional unemployment for new graduates. For example, like the trending adage in South Sudan goes: “when a minister is from a certain ethnicity, undersecretaries and employees in that ministry are likely to hail from that tribe.” Worse of all, communication in those ministries is mainly in the dominant tribe’s dialect; consequently, subtracting fractional minority coworkers from work related discussions. This is happening in South Sudan and it justifies the fact that nepotism or favouritism deprives employers and even the country from rightful aspirants. Because when building these tribal ministerial empires, thousands of deserving applicants are ignored before questionable ones are found based on nepotistic categorizations.   

In conclusion, the purpose of this brief essay is to condemn the normalization of nepotism and to encourage technocratic and egalitarian merits in South Sudan. Not just in government organizations, but also non governmental organization, including private sector enterprises. 

South Sudan: Delayed Development

South Sudan’s progress to a prosperous state is greatly affected by recurring insecurity, specially the ongoing war, albeit the country’s leadership ostensibly have no clear vision guiding the nation to prosperity from the get-go. Mainly the lack of an inclusive constitution and political will to install a functioning security apparatus are among other countless reasons keeping South Sudan from reaching its potential. Until these factors, including the unmentioned ones, are thoroughly resolved, South Sudan will continue to whirl downward as far as security and development in the country are concern.

Among other reasons, the currently used Transitional Constitution was written without proper checks and balance in place. So, the document is not all that perfect, for it does not address the interests of all South Sudanese. Specially, those not physically represented during its articulation, and it didn’t  undergo proper democratic procedures before it was passed. The lone opponent of the undemocratic passing of the currently used constitution is the 'current South Sudan’s Emmanuel Goldstein’, Dr. Riek Machar Teny. The man eloquently pointed out his disagreement on many clauses in the constitution, but failed to gain his fellow policymakers’ support. One could not help but think his colleagues, who were mainly from the Dinka ethnicity, were being protective from the man who allegedly caused Dinka and the mainstream SPLA tremendous setbacks in the past.

"The Sudanese most organized and powerful gorilla movement", the Sudan People’s Liberation Army and Movement (SPLA/M), as described by several global media house, suffered ethnic  breakage in 1991. The highly threatening movement to Sudanese regimes was divided into two factions. The Torit faction predominantly of Jieng or Dinkans with their ideological supporters and the Nassir faction mainly of Naath or Nuer ethnicity also with their supporters. The two factions exchanged armed confrontations, which resulted in a near genocide killing in both factions, but most disadvantageously, the split caused SPLA/M in general, its military capacity and subsequent loss of captured territories to Sudan Armed Forces (SAF). The fragmentation of the armed movement and the resultant killing, caused distrust and fuelled the ever existent rivalry between the Jieng and the Naath communities.

Now given the brief background of relations between the two populous ethnicities of the country, it is conscientious to insert that Dr. Machar did not win support- to amending some parts of the constitution- during the constitution making because he was a minority in a Dinka dominated lawmakers clique. Similarly, given the current armed and political turmoil in the country, it is also reasonable to add that 'Dinka elites’ were and are being protective of their communal welfare and are punishing Dr. Machar for 1991 defection and the incurred killing. For instance, when seeking opinion as to who caused the current war, almost any Dinkan would throw blames on Riek regardless of what is there to prove that the president is the one at fault. Hence, the ongoing war is tribal in nature and has nothing to do with South Sudan as a country.

This sectarian conflict will definitely reoccur if not properly resolved and monitored by neutral systems until all agreements are implemented accordingly; otherwise, all that is being conducted in Addis Ababa is a waste of resources. South Sudan needs committed and honest mediators to help eradicate the tribal pandemic this time and for good.