Decentralization: a 'best option for ROSS' but lacking practicality
Quote:
If South Sudan is to be a federal
state, its constitution should not only say so, its citizens should treat
the constitution as a sacred document that delegates to and limits the
powers of any institutions(By Professor Lokuji, U.o Juba)
By: Deng Riek Khoryoam,
South Sudan
It was last week on
Tuesday, the 10th May 2011, when I participated in a public lecture on
decentralisation organised by GOSS Directorate of decentralisation and
intergovernmental relation, the University of Juba as well as the civil
society organisations. Probably I should have written this article
long before, that is sooner after the one I wrote and sent on Wednesday last
week but I wanted to give my readers time to digest that article before I
could write this one again. Certainly and realistically though, one needs to
give the readership ample time or space to read, reflect and make any sound
and rational conclusions about the topic in question in order to make sense
out of it. It's also good to note that we don't just write for the sake of
writing. There is a reason and urge that prompts people to write!
The public lecture that I
participated in was as fascinating as anything one could think of as it drew
different opinions and different schools of thought on board. The debates or
questions that were generated by the topic on decentralisation were
interesting and lovely. I followed the whole debate with keen interest;
including the counter-statements by the lieutenants from the King's camp as
they tried in vain to justify their tight grip on power for unspecified
period of time. What ensued after the presentations (first by Professor
Lokuji from the University of Juba and secondly by Hon. Dr. Richard K.
Mulla) was acrimonious exchanges of words from a certain Chief of staff (not
sure if of armed forces or not) in the office of the President. It goes
without saying that what these two academicians and equally high profile
figures presented was something ONLY the often sick or thick-minded
individuals could dispute------but obviously it does make sense since it
touched some wrong nerves at the wrong time!
I must thank Professor
Lokuji and Hon. Richard K. Mulla for having stood tall to tell the truth
about centralisation of powers as opposed to decentralisation which is
enshrined in the trash-throwing-ICSS, 2005 and the incoming DTCRSS. I find
their presentations both educative and informative; and equally
thought-provoking as it challenged people to think far beyond party lines.
The chief of staff in the office of the president complained fold handed
that the paper presented by the Professor was not balanced no way, it
couldn't be biased or unbalanced just because it unearthed truths about the
intentions of the government talking about decentralisation yet doing the
opposite. It exposed sheer naivety and arrogance of the highest order of
this gentleman the so called chief of staff from the president's
office. I was happy that the professor responded to his subjective rude
comment in a more solemn and smart way that put him and his likes to shame,
if they did feel any shame at all!
Decentralisation is good
because it's what the people of South Sudan want, and have always been
yearning to get, as a best form of governance. But the way in which it's
expressed leaves a lot to be desired. In nutshell, it's lacking practicality
and political will to implement it, to be sincere. Decentralisation is
simply defined as transferring some of the powers and responsibilities from
the central government closer to the people at the lower level for better
governance. That is, powers are divided between different levels of
government down to the rural communities. It's commonly believed that
decentralisation is closely linked to democracy as it helps empower the
people to not only have a say on their own affairs but also how they would
like to be governed and by whom. This way they feel a sense of dignity and
sense of self-worth.
A few countries in the
world (America as a model) are said to be fairing on well with
decentralisation. In South Sudan, decentralisation could be a best
constitutional option as the theme of that public lecture read that day but
it's wanting in nature. But should it just be written in the constitution
or implemented? Some feel threatened, that by implementing decentralisation
because they fear they could lose their positions. Others also say it does
not promote national unity and cohesion needed in the new republic but
is it true? I don't think so. These guys are wasting tax-payer's money by
visiting some countries in Africa and beyond on good governance and
democracy etc but not putting into practice what they have learned there.
To me, putting it in the
constitution is different and implementing it is a different thing
altogether. It looks good in the constitution but it needs
implementation if it's to bear any substantial fruits. But what do the two
constitutions, ICSS 2005, and DTCSS say about decentralisation? Article 50,
chapter 3 in the interim constitution of Southern Sudan, 2005, talked about
decentralisation all through to article 51 in the same chapter; which is
about devolution of powers affirmation of the need of norms and
standards of governance. Has this been the case during the interim period?
You can answer this question for yourself. Article 47 in the DTCSS talks
about decentralisation, all through to article 48, which talks about
devolution of powers and establishing norms and standards of governance in
the new republic of South Sudan (ROSS). Is this going to be the case now in
ROSS? I don't think so. First of all, the president has been given absolute
powers to appoint and sack even a commissioner without consulting the
community, something which runs contrary to the agreed or mentioned
principles of decentralisation/devolution of powers. And second of all, who
would want to be deceived by such hallow propaganda since Kiir and his
lieutenants always act outside or hubris on the law? The whole thing is a
contradiction, because you cannot talk of decentralisation while you are in
fact, doing the opposite: concentrating powers in the centre this is very
unfortunate!
We could just remove the
word de and go with centralisation since it's what is practical instead of
preaching water yet drinking alcohol. This is no difference with military
government in fact why not go for military government instead of all
these headaches? The way John Luk and his committee gave powers to the
President; don't be surprised if Kiir orders the shooting of civilians in
South Sudan without anyone asking why. Honestly speaking, he has more powers
than even parliament; he can declare state of emergency and war without
consulting with parliament. He can also remove an elected governor during
this transitional period and appoint another as he likes, and at anytime.
This is craziness! Where on earth can an elected public office holder be
removed through presidential decree or powers? Who gave all these powers to
the President in the first place? This is lawlessness at play!!
In recap, decentralisation
is a good option for ROSS, and would actually cure some of its ills but its
lacking practicality. We need to be a bit serious if we are to seriously
implement what is in the constitution on decentralisation otherwise we
are making fools of ourselves. We want our people to have a voice in
choosing their representatives, not dictating or imposing unwanted leaders
on them. The mistakes of the last six years of CPA should not be repeated
under the pretext and on the pretence of implementing decentralisation. We
either go for military/dictatorship government or implement decentralisation
honestly without pretence. The advantages of decentralisation outweigh that
of centralisation, therefore, lets do away with the later.
Aluta continua and viva
struggle for democracy to prevail in ROSS!!!
The author lives in South
Sudan and could be reached for comments at driakfangak@hotmail.com
[ Copyright ©2002-2010 SouthSudan.Net
info@southsudan.net ]