 |
| Mabior Garang de Mabior |
Mabior Garang, eldest son of late John Garang de Mabior, founder of the South Sudanese ruling party, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) wrote;
Talking Notes
The late Dr. John Garang de Mabior used to constantly remind us that, one must always have an “anchor in history” and in the case of South Sudan, I would like to start by posing the question as the late Chairman and Commander in Chief of the SPLM/SPLA did: “Is there an anchor in history for the existence of the Republic of South Sudan? I say yes, there is.
I. Historical Background (The antiquity of South Sudan as part of the greater history of the history of the Nile Valley peoples).
A. The Nile Valley people have been known by many names throughout
history.
B. The names are a reference to the appearance of the people (Ethiopia,
Sudan, Kush, etc.).
C. The Collapse of the Egypto-Nubian Kingdoms of antiquity led directly to the establishment of the Sudanic Kingdoms; Ghana, Mali, Songhai, Meroe, Napata, to name a few (we shall concern ourselves here with those which relate more directly to the modern history of the Republic of South Sudan.
D. The story of the collapse of Egypto-Nubian Civilization started with the
Persian Invasion (in 525 BCE, under Cambyses II), followed by Greek
Occupation (in 332 BCE, under Alexander Great), followed by Roman
Occupation (in 30 BCE, the Famous Kandankes of Nubia are known to have
fought against the forces of Augustus Caesar [p. 131] Civilization or
Barbarism), this was followed by Arab Occupation (in 642 CE), bringing
us to more familiar times of modern Colonialism with the French and the
British (in the 19th Century). This long history of wave of invasion,
after wave of invasion forced the vanquished peoples of the Nile Valley
to migrate South over the centuries.
E. There is often a romantic approach to understanding our ancient history, especially in the “conscious community”, an idea that our African kingdoms where benevolent and we lived in a utopia until the invasion by Europeans.
F. The truth is, the kingdoms that
evolved in the Sudan, inherited the crushing bureaucratic system of
governance (known as AMP) from
antiquity.
G. The system of oppression was already well developed by the first encounters between “blacks” and “whites” (the caste system, slavery, this was the politics of the center and the periphery), the “whites” would only (later) inherit, then further develop this system. This system had already created from antiquity, a periphery population in the geographical area we today call South Sudan.
II. The Nucleation of South Sudan (The Process of National Formation).
A. There are very few reliable sources regarding the history of this area we today call South Sudan and the various people who inhabit it.
B. The Ancient Egypto-Nubians used to
call them Nahas or Nahassiou (plural), these are people who lived to the
South of the Nubians, some say they called all Africans they didn’t
consider civilized by this name
(this is well documented by Professor Cheikh Anta Diop in his book: Civilization or Barbarism” [p. 181]).
C. The only history we know of these frontier people (similar to the Germanic tribes and the Roman Empire) is from inferences we can make from the records of those who didn’t consider them civilized, so it is biased at best.
D. The various populations of South Sudan as we know them today, burst onto the historical scene in the first half of the 19th Century, with the records of the Turco-Egyptian and the Anglo-Egyptian period of Sudanese history (Douglas Johnson has written a book with letters and reports by district commissioners of this period in: Empire and The Nuer: Sources of the Pacification of the Sudan 1898-1930).
E. The one thing that is abundantly clear
is that the people of South Sudan share a common history of oppression
that can be traced back to antiquity. In Empire and the Nuer, Douglas
Johnson writes: “The TurcoEgyptian conquest of the Sudan radically
altered relations between many Southern Sudanese communities and between
Southern
Sudanese and their northern Neighbors (Empire and The Nuer, [p. 26]).
F. It is only from the 19th Century that
we start to hear the voices of South Sudanese people in the historical
record. This has come down through the resistance of Chiefs, Prophets
and Kings across South Sudan.
G. This common history of oppression also meant a common history of
resistance, which made South Sudanese coalesce against the fair skin
foreigner, whom they called Turuk (no matter the nationality) and they
increasingly began to refer to themselves as Junubeen. According
Douglas Johnson in his book, “South Sudan: A New History for a New
Nation”, states: “In the later half of the 19th Century the Lou Nuer
Prophet Ngundeng attempted to formulate a philosophy of social harmony
within the mixed population that not only condemned Nuer intersectional
feuds but prohibited raids against non-Nuer neighbors”
(p. 81).
III. The Modern South Sudan
A. The South Sudan we know today starts to emerge out of the seventy
(70) year history of the Ottoman Empire in the Sudan.
B. This period is better known to most people as the Turco-Egyptian period and this is when the Zeriba system was introduced in South Sudan. The towns of South Sudan (the majority of them) are a legacy of the Zeriba (slaverh) system, which later developed into the Melekias, which were towns in which freed military slaves settled with their families.
C. The defeat of the Axis powers by the Allies in World War One, saw the transfer of the colonies of the Axis forces to the allies, bringing us to the Anglo-Egyptian period.
D. The current system of civil
administration at the village level, was introduced during the
Anglo-Egyptian period. This is a system, which
has sharply divided South Sudanese society and the effects of it are with us up to this day.
IV. The Two South Sudans
A. The establishment of the court system during the Anglo-Egyptian period effectively created two distinct South Sudanese populations. Those from what Douglas Johnson calls in his book, “South Sudan:
A New History for a New Nation”; the “deep rural”, which he says was: “a term first applied to west Africa to explain the ambivalent relationship between market centers and peripheral agricultural communities” (p. 60) and those from what I call the: “roadside” (if the road passed near your village).
B. The new system changed the criteria for leadership within the indigenous governance system. The criteria for leadership was no longer uprightness, justice and the ability to provide “life” for the people, but how well the said candidate could rule “indirectly” on behalf of the occupier of the day. This was especially true as the trading companies began to establish themselves and used this new system of chiefs to do their bidding.
C. The face of South Sudan changed, as
those whose villages where by the “roadside” increasingly came to
control the means of production and as the colonial system became more
entrenched. The new “roadside” culture was in contradiction to the
indigenous culture and so as a tactic of cultural resistance, many
populations retreated far away from any road into the “deep rural”,
while those settled along the roads where redefined by the colonists in
their image and likeness, in a colonial policy known as “Africanisation”
(sometimes we confuse this with Pan Africanism). In his book “Nuer
Prophets: A History of Prophecy from the Upper Nile in the Nineteenth
and Twentieth Centuries”, Douglas
Johnson says about the District Commissioner of Mongalla Province (wbich
at the time included Jong’lei), Major J. W. Wyld: “he was attempting to
invent tribes out of a diverse group of refugees who had abandoned
their lands to the slavers and the Nuer during the previous century. He
thus had the opportunity not only to tailor a tribal structure to the
specifications of native administration, but also to create new office
of chief.” (p. 20)
D. The Children of these new chiefs are the ones who went to school and ultimately inherited the apparatus of the state, or at very least the “national dialogue” at independence.
E. The vast majority of these elites are detribalized; however, they have learned to use “tribe” as a (divisive) political philosophy by which to attain and cling to political power, to the detriment of those in whose name they claim to rule.
F. This politics of divide and conquer “has no color” (as Dr. John Garang used to say) and it is this that led to the breakup of the old Sudan and threatens the integrity of the Republic of South Sudan.
V. The Politics of Divide and Rule and the “Dinka vs Nuer” Predicament.
A. There is a story which is common to Gaw’ar and Kong’or communities
(The story of the Sons of the Lion known as “let” to the Gaw’ar and “bul” by the Kong’or)
B. This myth and other myths (like the one of Jieng and Nuer sons of Deng and Akuol similar all of which are similar to the story of Isaac and Ismael) have resulted in several raids and killings on both sides, which have escalated and have been politicized over time by the various colonial regimes.
C. The various raids between the Gaw’ar and the Kong’or people around the turn of the 20th Century, the largest of which was the raid on Duk (1929), today has become Dinka vs. Nuer.
D. This is however, not a natural course of events, as there is no such thing as Dinka and Nuer prior to colonialism, these identities are colonial. There has never been an all-embracing identity of Dinka or Nuer (as was the case with many other communities in Africa), these are linguistic groups and not ethnicities. There are many tribes which speak Dinka and many tribes which speak Nuer, and their loyalty had always been to their locality and not the linguistic group. There are some Dinka who may have had closer ties and been aware of a Nuer community, while not knowing the existence of some far off Dinka tribe (the Nile is a formidable natural barrier to primitive people).
E. The various regimes that have come and gone, have used these divisions to keep the two most populous communities in South Sudan fighting, which has traditionally weakened the struggle, and today threatens the unity of the country.
VI. The History vs. The Myth of 1991 in South Sudanese Politics
A. The historical events of 1991 in South Sudan have attained the level of political myth. However, it is important to understand these events in the correct context of local and world history.
B. The year 1991 was a year of global upheavals following the end of the cold war and the collapse of the eastern bloc.
C. The Khartoum regime of the time, seeing an opportunity to exploit these events, made offers to some SPLA Commanders that they could not refuse. The Khartoum government divided the SPLM/SPLA leadership by appearing to offer self-determination to the people of South Sudan, because the SPLM/SPLA was founded on the principle of a united Sudan, this precipitated a split in the movement . This is what eventually led to the Khartoum Peace Agreement of 1997, which DR. Riek Machar would later declare in 2002: “did not work”.
D. The Khartoum then used its Anyanya II forces, who overran Bor in South Sudan, committing atrocities which where broadcast worldwide. The revenge attacks which ensued, further exacerbated the already delicate situation which existed, the history of raids between Dual Diu’s family in Gaw’ar and Pan Bior in Kong’or (these raids had now became politicized and nationalized).
E. The use by the Khartoum regime of Anyanya II forces, who were predominantly Nuer, had its intended effect of further dividing the people of South Sudan along ethnic lines and after independence, we should have engaged in national reconciliation and healing, instead of further widening this cleavage.
F. The historical events of 1991, far
from the mythology of it, is more than just a Dinka vs. Nuer affair, the
tragedy befell South Sudan as a whole.
The Sudan Armed Forces massacred the people of Equatoria after the SPLA
failed to capture Juba (1992). This was the main tragedy of the events
of 1991, that the SPLA failed to take Juba, it is the people of South
Sudan in their totality who suffered from this failure.
G. The great lesson we should have learned from the tragedy of the historical events of 1991, is the importance of unity.
H. The SPLM/SPLA was founded as a unity between the Anyanya I that mutinied in Ayod, Bor, Pachala, and Pibor, with the Anyanya II that were already in the bushes of Ethiopia. It was this unity that enabled them to take an area greater than that currently within the borders of the Republic of South Sudan.
I. The people of South Sudan have always been victorious in times of unity, with these victories being reversed in times of division.
J. The independence of South Sudan would not have been achieved
except for this unity.
K. The 1991 split was mended by the
leaders in 2002, with Dr. John Garang and Dr. Riek Machar reconciling
and all other armed groups joining the Naivasha Peace Process in Kenya
(as part of IGAD process).
This was followed by conferences at the grassroots level, the most famous one being the Wun’lit Conference.
L. The CPA was signed in 2005 with the people of South Sudan reconciled at the grassroots level and very euphoric about the prospects for the future referendum on self-determination for the people of Southern Sudan.
M. This euphoria was polarized by the tragic events, which have now become history (the helicopter crash of Dr. John Garang). The people of South Sudan are yet to recover from this great shock; despite the fact that there was an opportunity at independence, it was all shattered when civil war broke out less than three years into independence. The catalyst for the conflict was a difference of opinion within the SPLM/SPLA leaders, some of whom charged the Movement with failing to deliver on the promises of the Liberation Struggle and that the Movement had been hijacked by former members of the NCP, the former enemies of the SPLM/SPLA.
VII. The New Movement
A. The independence of South Sudan inevitably caused new contradictions to arise within the society. They went from being traditionally critics of “status quo”, to becoming “status quo”.
B. The SPLM/SPLA failed to manage the
transition, from being a liberation movement concerned with the issues
of the civil population in the
“deep rural” (the vast majority of the South Sudanese civil population),
to one that has to contend with the politics of the “roadside” (an example is the army issue).
C. This unfortunate course of events left the movement open to be hijacked by anyone who was well organized and the cadres of the movement were still shaken by the loss of their leader.
D. The SPLM/SPLA even according to its members declared that the SPLM/SPLA had lost vision ( this is shown by the results of the SPLM thanksgiving tour of the 10 states by the political bureau members assigned by the party secretariat in 2012, where the report had it that ‘the SPLM has lost vision’, refer to “SPLM December 6 Press Conference in 2013”, available on YouTube ).
E. The Movement, having merged with the repressive state apparatus without transforming it, resorted to the (what Paulo Freire calls) “the culture of silence”, as opposed to the “dialogical approach” which was the secret to the success of the movement and its historic achievement.
VIII. The Way Forward
A. The way the current conflict started and the atrocities committed have been well documented by the AU, by the UN and by several rights groups such as Amnesty International and others, so there is no need to get into it here.
B. There is no military solution to the
conflict and the only way to end the war, is for the people of South
Sudan to have an honest and mature dialogue about the future of their
country. This should not be so difficult, considering most of the
leaders on all the sides are former comrades in arms. This after all was
one of the objectives of the
SPLM/SPLA in its war against Khartoum, to convene a National
Constitutional Convention. The people of South Sudan, need to agree on
the meaning of South Sudaneseness, they must have a charter or
declaration which incorporates them into a new nation and this unity
must be a voluntary unity, we must agree.
C. The other way is to wage a struggle for the unity of the opposition, which would exert the required pressure on the regime to make them negotiate in good faith.
D. The solution to the problems of South Sudan will ultimately come from South Sudanese themselves.
E. The SPLM/SPLA (IO) is a revolutionary movement within the greater opposition, which arose out of these contradictions and is committed to the struggle of the people of South Sudan, to fulfill the promises of the liberation struggle and we shall wage this struggle to its logical conclusion. The leadership of the SPLM/SPLA (IO) have committed ourselves to transforming this despicable situation that our people have been put in by their own leaders, into a national democratic revolution.
The struggle of the people of South Sudan doesn’t belong to any one political group; it is the duty of every responsible citizen to wage this struggle. The role of young people is always critical in any conflict and I would encourage young people to arm themselves with knowledge, as knowledge is power.
There is something, which some of us in the leadership of the SPLM/SPLA (IO) have adapted from the Mozambican struggle and the leadership of Samora Machel in particular and we always talk of “our sophisticated weapon”.
The strongest weapon in the hands of the oppressor, iis the mind of the oppressed (as Bantu Biko informs us) and (as John Garang informs us) the oppressors have no colour.
The more the youth are truly educated (as colonial curriculum is
still with us), the better they will be able to face the future
challenges as individuals and as a people.
This knowledge is available for anyone interested in verifying or
finding it out for themselves and being students at the university,
there is access to all sorts of information at the touch of a button
(there is really no excuse to be ignorant). Those who are in university
should use this time to arm themselves with information about their
history and those who are not at the university, today have the
advantage of the information technology revolution (there are enough PDF
books online for cree and numerous lectures on YouTube).
The late Cheikh Anta Diop defined Identity as a) language, b) history
and c) phycology and we need to have a working knowledge of who we have
been, in order that we may have a chance at reversing the dehumanizing
effects of the history of colonial domination, so that we may have a
fighting chance at forming a new society. This new society can only be
formed through detribalization and nucleation into a common identity and
this must be based on history and not imagination. In losing, I leave
you with a quote from my favourite educator:
Because it is a distortion of being more fully human, sooner or later being less human, leads the oppressed to struggle against those wbo made them so…This, then is the great humanistic and historical task of the oppressed: to liberate themselves and their oppressors as well.
~ Paulo Freire (Pedagogy of the Oppressed)