The Pitfalls of South Sudan’s Diaspora Engagement: What is at stake and the way forward? Part I,

The luminaries of the ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) in South Sudan have repeatedly made public utterances calling for South Sudan’s Diaspora to return home and contribute to its development. On the surface, these calls seem genuine because running new institutions in a new country need requisite skills which some people in the Diaspora tend to have. However, on further examination, one finds that those advocating for Diaspora’s return actually do not have a policy framework on how to attract South Sudanese with those required skills. What they mean when they invite Diaspora is an ad hoc voluntary return, which few people in Diaspora could do.

As I wrote privately to one of my friends last year, this approach has serious shortcomings. Here are the reasons I say so: It assumes that those in Diaspora have no responsibilities or commitments in their new adopted countries.It gives the Government some comfort that its current ad hoc persuasive call for South Sudan’s Diaspora to return is working. It puts the onus of patriotic volunteerism on Diaspora, some of whom go back and wait for months without getting jobs.It also gives those working for the government and who hold the view that skilled Diaspora are their natural competitors in the job market an opportunity to scuttle meaningful Diaspora engagement.

Of the four reasons I have provided above, I would like to examine the last point for the purpose of this piece, because it is the biggest impediment to the successful Diaspora engagement as well as to public service reform. The majority of those who currently hold government positions were not appointed on the basis of merits. Some got their positions based on military hierarchy during the war, a good number was appointed on whims of politicians, while others got in because their relatives call shots in the corridors of power in Juba. This is not to say that those who partook in the war of liberation do not deserve certain recognition or are qualified. All I am saying here is that their recognition must be compatible and commensurate with their skills.

Those who got their positions on the basis of approaches I have listed above are highly intolerant to merit based system. To them, merit, presents a grave threat to their entitlement. The resistance it evokes whenever merit is mentioned is exemplified by how Madam Awut Deng, the former minister of public service was frustrated when she attempted reform the civil service. Partaking in war of national liberation versus merit based system The culture of resistance to reform on merit-based system is supported by the logic that government appointments as they stand today must be based on one’s participation in the war of national liberation. The logic goes: I am a war hero, therefore, I am entitled to a government position, which in turn confers powers on me to seek advancement for my relatives regardless of whether they can do the job or not. While this logic is an accepted modus operandi in job allocations in Juba, I think it needs rethinking. The picture it presents ignores many crucial questions. Were those who fought and fell during the war fighting for their self-enrichment when independence is achieved or were they fighting for greater good for South Sudanese? Secondly, are government positions entitlements to be enjoyed without accounting for the deliverables? Thirdly, does one’s credibility as a war hero translates into heroism in the post-war era without the delivery of what was promised during the war? These questions are worth asking, because they speak to post-independence experiences of many African countries.

In his analysis of Ngugi Wa Thiong’o “Petal of Blood”, Craig V. Smith captures the frustration Ngugi felt at the excesses of the Kenya’s post-colonial leadership. According to Smith, Ngugi questioned the relevance of credibility conferred on Kenya’s anti-colonial leadership solely on their contribution to the national liberation without a corresponding assessment of whether they have stuck to the ideals they fought for. For Ngugi, credibility as an anti-colonial leader guarantees no automatic credibility as a national, post-colonial leader. According to Smith, Ngugi questioned the legitimacy- deficit of the post-colonial leaders who ignore their constituencies, mix politics with private enterprise, use their positions to enrich selves and families, and focus on preserving their privileges rather than extending and developing human and economic potential. To keen observers who have been following developments in South Sudan since 2005, all the things Ngugi was inveighing against in 1970s are the same challenges South Sudan is wrestling with today and it will continue to wrestle with them for a foreseeable future. For example, it is an open secret that constitutional post holders mix politics with private enterprise. Some government ministers own businesses that win procurement contracts from the ministries they are heading with no regards for values and ethics.

Some politicians sit on the board of directors of foreign companies that require the protection of a big man. This is done notwithstanding questionable business practices these companies exhibit. All this is done with no due consideration to consequences of blurring the lines dividing public and private spheres, especially for those in the public service. When legitimate concerns are raised about these practices, those who question and bring these issues to light are either dismissed as people who did not participate in the struggle or they are intimidated like Deng Athuai, the leader of South Sudan Civil Society Alliance who was recently kidnapped and tortured for speaking out……part II to follow Madut Majok

Statement on Mr. Deng Athuai Kidnapping in Juba

As we take pride in South Sudan's first anniversary, we also need to express our collective worries over the trend and methods employed to silent those who express public sentiment about corruption in the country.

We should be worried, because the ability to speak one's mind on national issues without any fear of being persecuted is the litmus test to true freedom and citizenship. It is something South Sudanese should defend irrespective of their political leanings. Personally, this year's anniversary has been tainted by the callous actions of those who kidnapped and gruesomely tortured the leader of South Sudan's Civil Society Alliance, Mr. Deng Athuai.

South Sudan can not afford to emulate Khartoum with respect to how its treat those who express divergent opinion. Many people who fell during the war, both combatants and non-combatants didn't die for the replication of the system they abhorred. No one who voted for independent South Sudan would like to see the continuation of policies they rejected from Khartoum in their country.

The current leadership in Juba needs to reassure the apprehensive public that they are different from Khartoum by expeditiously investigating and bringing to book those who are behind Mr. Athuai kidnapping and gruesome beating. The same applies to the case of Mayol Kuch who was murdered by those who show no hesitation to torture citizens at will.