By Madut Majok Ngor Dut
Halifax, Canada
posted to web 16th of June 2006

June 15, 2006 - Keen observers might have noticed the upsurge of political analysts among the South Sudanese Diaspora. The main task of this group is to extrapolate the events as they incessantly attempt to navigate the political terrain in South Sudan. These individuals or should I call them cantankerous savants had taken the term corruption as an accoutrements of their political opportunism and have wasted no time in trying to mislead others to accept unsubstantiated allegations about corruption.

Though the existence of corruption in South Sudan might be an irrefutable phenomenon, what is in doubt however, is a void analysis driven by political motivations practiced by those who perceived themselves as public watch-dogs. These people react as if corruption was a new thing. It had been there since the inception of the movement and those who try to blame it on the current GOSS leadership are not being honest. If they were truly genuine in their attempts to hold GOSS officials to account for their actions, they would have not been exclusive in the way fashion their criticism.

What these individuals have not factored into their thinking is that, a series of deliberate speculations can tremendously undermined those who engage in them politically if the speculated event ends up being contrary to what was speculated.

A good example is how the resignation of the former minister of International Cooperation in GOSS, Mr. Nhial Deng Nhial has been shaped to suit uncalled for attack on GOSS.

While we should not be uncritical boosters to the ‘underperforming government’, we as the citizens must guard against lies tailored to achieve ulterior motives. The tributes being paid to Nhial from certain quarters for his resignation from GOSS, in my opinion are malice laden and are the indicators of political opportunism mentioned earlier. This is because of the simple fact that a hero worship Nhial had accomplished for resigning from GOSS was inconceivable yesterday, especially from some like Gordon Buay.

The fuss about lack of progress and endemic corruption in GOSS which are held by these critics as the primary reasons for the minister’s resignation have not been supported by a single line from the minister’s resignation letter. Instead of engaging the GOSS to publish the said letter for the benefit of the public, the critics found the conjectural reasoning irresistible for the obvious advantage that this guess-work gives them the latitude to appeal to the emotions of the masses as opposed to sober political engagement.

Indeed the demagogic inclinations exhibited here are unparalleled in comparison to what those who demand accountability elsewhere do in the similar situations. First those who claim to have known the reality of corruption in GOSS tend to get their information from what is released by GOSS. The obvious examples are the controversial donation of 1 million Kenya shillings towards the famine alleviation and the 20 thousand dollars give to the infamous lord resistance army.

While the morality guiding both donations should be left to the public to judge, terming them as the exposure of corruption is not only laughable, but is also a clear manifestation of a deliberate creation of ambiguity between the delineated exposure of corruption and the condemnation of the government corrupt practices.

It is one thing to expose corruption and it another to condemn an act perceived to be corrupt. As for the first case, the intensity of the loss of face that accompanies it, allows the citizens to call for the resignation of the public official or a politician concern from the office. In the second case, whoever that is accused of carrying out corrupt practices can justify his/her actions before a parliamentary committee or any other statutory body or even through the media outlet. The interchangeability here, serves an important political purpose, it gives legitimacy to the purported exposure of corruption in GOSS by those who took it upon themselves to mislead others.

Secondly, the role of constructive criticism has been compromised by the political considerations. A case in point is the ceaseless erroneous analysis championed by Koang a.k.a Jakor. Mr. Koang has written more than once about the supposedly military failures that occurred when the current President was a front-line commander. He insistently argued that those failures should be used as the benchmarks upon which Salva Kiir should be judged. As if what he said was not enough, Mr. Koang went on and hammered his point home by spelling doom on the entire South Sudan over what he perceived to be the President weaknesses.

In my opinion, Mr. Koang stance selectively deals with an incomplete picture of what liberation struggle is all about. To him (Mr. Koang) those who achieved a series of military victories in the field are his heroes regardless of what they later did during the cause of the struggle. I partially agree with his proposition of the importance of military victory in the guerrilla warfare.

Nonetheless, scoring military victories without a complete commitment to the cause makes liberation struggle incomplete. The fact that Salva Kiir remained resolute within the SPLA during its hard times dispelled all these shamefaced pronouncements. If Kiir was ineffective militarily as Jakor wants us to believe, why was he not withdrawn from the front-line? The fact that he spent most of his time in the battle fields speaks volumes of his importance in the SPLA military endeavors.

I think Mr. Koang should be advised not to cast his glance far if he is looking for the true turncoats who let-down the movement. They are not really far from this own vicinity. Some people Mr. Koang supports have a terrible history if we are to use his category. Indeed the doom he is spelling on South Sudan now is a void doom and I think no one will espouse his hypocritical smear campaign that rewards the culprits and condemn someone whose contribution had been vital in the achievement of what we have now.