Anatomy of South Sudan mutiny and the bad blood between Kiir and Machar

Events of the last few days in South Sudan are invariably the greatest threat to stability seen in that country since it was established in July 2011.

Was it an attempted coup d’état? That is neither fully established nor highly important, pretty much like the question as to whether this is a Nuer-Dinka clash.

There has been incessant violence in different parts of South Sudan, but not to the military, humanitarian and political scales of the clashes between factions of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) last Sunday and the civilian killings that followed.

The arrest of ten or more senior figures of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) and the search for others is also unprecedented.

The violence has extended from Juba to Jonglei State and could spread further.

It has retained the form of clashes within the military with civilian casualties. Similarly, government clamp down on suspected dissidents has also gone beyond the capital city.

There are reports that local SPLM officials in Warrap State have been arrested for questioning over their roles in the alleged coup attempt.

These developments are unfortunate but not surprising.

Signs of growing disunity in SPLM and the possibility of a potentially violent conflict between two rival groups under President Salva Kiir Mayardit and ex-Vice President Riek Machar Teny have only been getting clearer by the day.

COUP PLOTTERS

Historical antecedents to the current crisis, especially the more recent ‘catalysts’ are fairly well known.

The dismissal of Dr Machar as vice-president, coupled with the sacking of several ministers following dissolution of the Cabinet and the suspension of SPLM secretary-general Pagan Amum in July this year, gave the strongest indication that SPLM was at war with itself.

Before then, the president had issued decrees sacking the governors of Lake and Unity states at different times this year and appointing office holders in interim capacities.

While the Constitution affords him the powers to do that, it also stipulates that such dismissals shall be justified only on grounds of national security, and that elections to fill the vacancies must be held within 60 days.

It is not clear how the two governors posed a threat to national security but their states had been experiencing inter-communal conflicts, which they had not been able to fully resolve or control at the time they were shown the door.

However, public discourse on the matter is almost conclusive that it was because of their political closeness to Dr Machar.

The same logic holds— at least in the views of observers in and out of the country— for the dismissal of the Cabinet ministers and the SPLM secretary-general, as well as the removal of certain top military officers from active service.

Elections in the two states have not been held to date, contrary to the constitutional requirement.

The government has explained that insecurity and seasonal inaccessibility of some of parts of the two states have made it difficult to hold polls. It is perhaps a case of breaking the law with very good intentions and for the overall good.

As it is now, there are two main political forces in South Sudan, and within the SPLM. In his press conference following the crisis, President Kiir referred to Dr Machar and his group as “the coup plotters”.

The group supposedly includes, among others, the ministers and governors recently sacked by the president as well as the suspended party secretary-general.

TRANSITIONAL PRESIDENT

But why is it that support and/or closeness to Dr Machar constitute a sin against president Kiir?

It is because the ex-VP has made public his intention to run for the position of party chairman and the country’s presidency— two positions that Kiir would like to retain for a further one term.

While the party convention has been postponed several times this year, elections are due in 2015.

That’s not all. Dr Machar has also repeatedly and publicly expressed the view that Mr Kiir has accomplished his task as a “transitional president” since the death of SPLM leader and first president of Southern Sudan John Garang in 2005, and that the president now needs to give way to a new leadership in the post-transition period.

While declaring his interest in the top seat, Dr Machar outlined six areas for the new leadership agenda of the SPLM and the government of South Sudan.

They are: fighting corruption in government; addressing persistent poverty and underdevelopment; addressing insecurity in the country;

fostering national unity and fighting deep-rooted tribalism; improving relations with erstwhile supporters and allies in the liberation struggle and developing a new vision for the party.

The SPLM, according to the former VP has become rudderless and dictatorial and needs urgent reforms to infuse democracy and clarity of vision into the party.

In Dr Machar’s view, it is in national interest that Kiir’s exit from the office of president of South Sudan is not delayed beyond 2015.

We cannot take Dr Machar’s diagnosis of the challenges facing South Sudan for gospel truth, ipso facto.

In any case, the Kiir administration has not denied the existence of these problems.

The important question is: Who will champion the search for solutions, and how would such leadership be arrived at? And this is the crux of the matter.

To start with, President Kiir does not see himself as a transitional leader. Indeed, no known document on the process of state development in South Sudan bears that position.

Furthermore, the president apparently was unhappy with an excessively aggressive and overly ambitious vice-president exercising open-mindedness akin to disobedience.

AMBITIOUS DEPUTY

It is not common that a vice-president tells his/her boss that their time is up, to their face and in public.

Wherever it has happened, a sacking has followed. That is why the error on the president’s part in sacking the VP needs not be overplayed.

What is worrying is the possibility that the Kiir regime will soon exclude key leaders representing key sections of the South Sudanese society at these early stages of state development.

In reality, the peace agreement between the northern National Congress Party (NCP) and SPLM signed in 2005 was not as ‘comprehensive’ as it was called.

It left a lot to be resolved in the period following its signing. How were the Southern Sudanese to overcome their own internal contradictions in the interim period, towards a new state after the referendum?

The unifying effect of the war was overvalued. Providing artifacts of the state without mechanisms for consolidation of peace and nationalism in the South was a shortcoming of the CPA, ab initio.

Matters have been made worse by the suspicions and tensions between key leaders throughout the interim period and after the 2011 declaration of the new republic.

But all these were no secrets, even as early as 2005. Just like the overwhelming support for secession at the referendum in 2011, the tensions and contradictions at the top leadership echelons of the SPLM/SPLA were predictable from way back, especially after the death of John Garang.

SILVER LINING

Nonetheless, there is a silver-lining in the current crisis and the blood already shed by the soldiers and innocent civilians should not be in vain.

It is time for leaders of South Sudan to consider the pressing national question of unity in diversity.

It is not even a Nuer-Dinka matter per se. The current situation is more complex than that, since there are claims of an emerging dictatorial and exclusive regime on the one hand, and a terribly angry, politically adventurous and, therefore, potentially dangerous ‘opposition’ group on the other.

President Kiir has already indicated his willingness to meet with Dr Machar and support for such talks have come from the African Union and the United Nations among other nations and groupings of states in the world.

At least, we know that President Kiir would like to be respected in his current term and to exercise his rights to defend his seat at the next elections.

Dr Machar wants to be accorded a fair chance to contest the seat currently being held by Mr Kiir in free and fair democratic processes at the party and national elections.

Both men prefer to use the SPLM as their election vehicle. The people of South Sudan want peace, security and prosperity.

They can only achieve these goals under a democratic developmental state that is as inclusive as it is popular.

Some pre-conditions exist for a meaningful engagement when the two men meet, if they meet. And they should meet.

President Kiir must refuse all counsel that portrays this situation as an affront on the Dinka community by the Nuer or any other community in South Sudan.

Secondly, the president should attend the talks wearing his traditional hat, and not military uniform. The symbolism will be important for the process.

On his part, Dr Machar needs to abandon the tunnel vision that sees regime change as the only solution to South Sudanese problems.

The good engineer must drop the view that Kiir is an “illegal” or illegitimate president as he claimed a couple of days ago.

GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY

So, what exactly do they need to talk about? Where could the journey towards a stable South Sudan begin at this time?

The two main opportunities are right before their eyes— the SPLM national convention and the constitution-making process that has stalled in recent days.

Having moved from the interim constitution of 2005 to the current transitional constitution and working towards a new Constitution, there can be no better opportunity to establish an inclusive governance order in South Sudan than the opportunity presented by this process.

Some agreements on the methods and results of these two processes will take South Sudan many steps ahead. They have a reason to meet and an agenda to discuss.