Equality before the Law

"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law। All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination", http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/declaration/7.asp

In the previous features, "Integral" discussed the lack of democratic principles in South Sudan and how such disunite the people of South Sudan. It observed the values or pillars of democracy: sovereignty of the people; government based upon consent of the governed; majority rule; minority rights; guarantee of basic human rights; free and fair elections; equality before the law; due process of law; constitutional limits on government; social, economic, and political pluralism; values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise, http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm.

"Integral" promised to examine each one of these pillars. It has already examined "sovereignty of the people"; "government based upon consent of the governed"; "majority rule"; "Minority rights"; and "Free and fair elections". Today's feature is divided into five parts. In this five parts, "Integral" will be looking at "Equality before the law" and its importance as stipulated in the Interim Constitution of South Sudan (ICSS) in Part II Bill of Rights; "Equality before the Law", article 18: "all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law without discrimination as to race, ethnic origin, colour, sex, language, religious creed, political opinion, birth, locality or social status. For more information on ICSS, visit: http://www.chr.up.ac.za/undp/domestic/docs/c_SouthernSudan.pdf. As for those willing to follow the "Integral" column right from its onset, visit: http://ohiyok-newsanalysesonline.blogspot.com/.

Equality before the law could be a simple and an understandable phrase if conceived in general terms. Its meaning, however, is as important as its reaffirmation of justice to all irrespective of their political, military and other social statuses or standings. Each one of the words forming the phrase have other meanings but "Integral" will only cherry-pick those that are relevant to the topic. Equality means uniformity; before means in front; and law means jurisprudence; (Collins, 2000:205; 55; 351). Thus, equality before the law could be rephrased as 'uniformity in front of jurisprudence'. This means that law should be applicable to all evenly. In other words, no one is above the law.

How does equality before the law relate to the "Integral" concept: "Disunity in South Sudan"? It does because there is inequality before the law in South Sudan and that breed conflict and conflict is one – if not the main – cause of disunity in many countries around the globe and South Sudan is not an exception। Before linking this discussion upto "Integral"'s line of argument, it is good fair to make the reader know about other examples on the concept of equality before the law.

Looking at the other examples of the rule of law around the world, in its most basic form, rule of law is the principle that no one is above the law. Thomas Paine stated in his pamphlet Common Sense (1776): "For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other।"

In England, the issuing of the Magna Carta was a prime example of the "rule of law." The Great Charter forced King John to submit to the law and succeeded in putting limits on feudal fees and duties. Another earlier example was Islamic law and jurisprudence, which recognised the equal subjection of all classes, including caliphs and sultans, to the ordinary law of the land।

Perhaps the most important application of the rule of law is the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process. The principle is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance, whether by a totalitarian leader or by mob rule. Thus, the rule of law is hostile both to dictatorship and to anarchy. Samuel Rutherford was one of the first modern authors to give the principle theoretical foundations, in Lex, Rex (1644), and later Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws (1748)।

In continental Europe and legal thinking, the rule of law has frequently, but not always, been associated with a Rechtsstaat. According to modern Anglo-American thinking, hallmarks of adherence to the rule of law commonly include a clear separation of powers, legal certainty, the principle of legitimate expectation and "equality" of all "before the law"। The concept is not without controversy, and it has been said that "the phrase 'the Rule of Law' has become meaningless thanks to ideological abuse and general over-use".

Relating these examples to "Integral"'s concept: "Disunity in South Sudan", the readers should be able to understand the meaning of the last sentence in the examples above. It says that the concept: "Equality before the law" is controversial that is probably because it is misused to connote equal application of the law; meaningless perhaps because some ideologies have abused the concept as this normally happens with totalitarian regimes.

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a concept used to describe political systems where a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life. The term is usually applied to Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Shōwa Japan or communist states, such as the Stalinist-USSR, Democratic Kampuchea, Vietnam, Mao-era and modern China and North Korea. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of an official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that controls the state, personality cults, central state-controlled economy, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tact.

"New Sudan", a concept in the making that is supposed to show in practical terms the difference between the old and the Sudan under SPLM/A control, could simply be added to the list of modern China and North Korea unfortunately. Terror tact, personality cult and the use of mass surveillance are but common practices in the "New Sudan". This statement may be judged to be unfair by those in the government of South Sudan (GOSS) who want to maintain the status-quo. Some would ask why South Sudan under GOSS should be equated to modern China and North Korea. It is because ideology (mainly revolving around the concept of "New Sudan") carries more meaning than the equal application of the law. For example, there are a number of cases that are awaiting a political decision rather than a court of law. Two of these cases received a political decision already instead of a court of law as the examples bellow could emphasise.

There are three senior members of the South Sudan community, namely Paul Omoya Thomas, an active Colonel in the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and former minister of agriculture in Eastern Equatoria State (EES)-GOSS; Lt-Gen. (Wildlife Rtd) Arkanjello Thomson; and Maj-Gen. Isaac Obuto Mamur Mete, Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) Deputy Chief of Staff (DCOS) for Morale Orientation.

Col. Thomas was accused of trying to assassinate the Speaker of South Sudan Interim Legislative Assembly (SSILA). He was wrongly accused because the arrest was not procedural. More so there is no trained military officer who could lay an ambush while waiting for the enemy on the road within which the ambush is supposedly laid. He had an illegal withdrawal of his immunity by the Governor of EES. He was illegally arrested and detained by SPLA for two years without trial. He was released by a political decision in mid 2008 without charges.

Lt-Gen. (Wildlife Rtd) Thomson was accused of collaboration with the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA). He was arrested and detained by the SPLA with Col. Thomas for two years illegally. He was released by a political decision together with Col. Thomas also without charges.

Maj-Gen. Mete, SPLA DCOS, was accused one year ago by the SPLA of acquiring weapons from, and training soldiers in Uganda, without the consent of the SPLA. He was also accused of failing to account for some cash he allegedly used while chairing the integration of Lt-Gen. Paulino Matip's South Sudan Defence Force officers and men into SPLA. A Military tribunal was formed and a court marshal instituted to try him. The court marshal did not find any evidence sufficient enough to convict him of any wrongdoing.

Both the SPLA affairs acting minister and the SPLA C-in-C; that is 1st-Lt-Gen. Salva Kiir Mayardit, 1st Vice-President and President of GOSS, are not in a position to release him possibly for fear of his reaction and so the case remains as complicated as the reasons for Maj-Gen. Mete's arrest were.

Col. Thomas, Lt-Gen. (Wildlife Rtd) and SPLA's Maj-Gen. Mete and many other South Sudanese have witnessed the GOSS/SPLA tact that deliberately deny detainees the right to courts, trial and the application of the due process of law just to inflict harm on, and perhaps dehumanize, them.

The practice of personality cult in the case of South Sudan includes fearing but not respecting senior leaders of the SPLM/A. Statements like 'had Dr Garang lived nobody could have tempered with GOSS finances; and that the GOSS could have succeeded in many ways' are but serious attachment of hopes on inexistent person. This is very dangerous because the South may not go ahead as its leaders may wait forever and the South together with its citizens will have to face the consequences.

Dr Garang is dead and nothing is going to bring him back. H.E. 1st-Lt-Gen. Mayardit has succeeded him and the only way to make things go in the South is to ensure that Mayardit has a strong cabinet and advisors not sycophants. Sycophants, who promote the practice of personality cult, do not care whether or not Mayardit succeeds in his efforts to rid the South of corrupt leaders and embark on its development so long as they loot the South in his name when the price will have to be paid by Mayardit himself.

From the above examples, how could anyone judge the impact of such on the relationship between the GOSS/SPLA and the people of South Sudan? The answer is simple: mistrust between GOSS/SPLA and the people will continue unabated. This mistrust is there and people in South Sudan are forced to live with it because those who try to address it fear retribution for commenting on the obvious. How does SPLM/A intend to unite the people of South Sudan? Is it through intimidation or understanding? The latter is the way forward but not intimidation of any kind, including misinterpretation of laws in the interest of few individuals who worship other individuals.

Those in GOSS/SPLA who encourage these kinds of practices could be equated to modern Chinese and South Korean leaders. This is because suppression of any kind, especially failure to embrace the due process of the law is inhuman. Due process of law is the principle that the government must respect all of a person's legal rights, instead of just some or most of those legal rights, when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. In the laws of the United States, this principle gives individuals a varying ability to enforce their rights against alleged violations thereof by governments. Due process of law has also been frequently interpreted as placing limitations on laws and legal proceedings, in order for judges instead of legislators to guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. The latter interpretation is analogous to the concepts of natural justice and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions

Equality before the law develops trust between the people and the government. A government that applies law equally gives its own citizens an opportunity to respect and interact with each other as each one of them would be aware of the consequences of committing any crime and its legal repercussions. Once it becomes an acceptable practice, the citizens would see fairness in their government and thus embrace it and, depending on their fair judgment, give it full support when need be.

GOSS/SPLA has failed to exercise fairness on all those it has arrested. Many South Sudanese would emphatically agree with this statement. Take the example of Arthur Akuen, GOSS' former minister of finance who was accused of embezzling money worth millions.

Arthur Akuen was arrested and locked up in prison after he was accused of involvement in the infamous Al Cardinal scandal. Later, however, he was released and upto this moment he lives in his house as a free man. Could the decision to let loose Arthur Akuen have something to do with his immunity as a minister or his affiliation to the ruling tribe?

Assuming that Col. Thomas of the SAF and Lt-Gen. (Rtd) Thomson of the unified police were regarded as enemies, something SPLA never hides from saying, what about Maj-Gen. Mete, the SPLA DCOS? Could this kind of treatment have something to do with the tribe of Maj-Gen. Mete? Would Mete have remained in solitary confinement as he is now for nearly two years had he been from the ruling tribe? Why is Mete's case unique in military law? Can't the SPLA fire him if he is found guilty of corruption, which is widely practiced in GOSS/SPLA?

He could be dismissed without post benefits and either detained in civilian prison or discharged from active service and set free. But should he be clean from all the accusations as this is said to be the case, which awaits a political decision of the C-in-C, he should be cleared and reinstated in his office. It is only mutiny, rebellion and releasing of classified information which is treasonous but not a common practice in South Sudan like corruption.

What is there on planet earth that could be more disuniting to a people with a common destiny than segregation of its own inhabitants on the basis of clan, tribe, creed, colour and nationality? These are things which cannot be practiced by modern governments let alone being encouraged by citizens of the 21st Century। The world that is inherited today by its current leaders was in wars that were caused by divisions on the basis of strength, clan, tribe, creed, colour, you name it. The social contract theorists made possible the adoption of modern states based on the rule of law and equal application of that law on all regardless of their statuses.

In his Leviathan book, Thomas Hobbes, an English scholar mostly known for his scholastic work on social contract, set out his doctrine of the foundation of states and legitimate governments - based on social contract theories. Leviathan was written during the English Civil War; much of the book is occupied with demonstrating the necessity of a strong central authority to avoid the evil of discord and civil war।

Beginning from a mechanistic understanding of human beings and the passions, Hobbes postulates what life would be like without government, a condition which he calls the state of nature. In that state, each person would have a right, or license, to everything in the world. This inevitably leads to conflict, a "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes), and thus lives that are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (xiii)।

To escape this state of war, men in the state of nature accede to a social contract and establish a civil society. According to Hobbes, society is a population beneath a sovereign authority, to whom all individuals in that society cede their natural rights for the sake of protection. Any abuses of power by this authority are to be accepted as the price of peace. However, he also states that in severe cases of abuse, rebellion is expected. In particular, the doctrine of separation of powers is rejected: the sovereign must control civil, military, judicial and ecclesiastical powers।

As in the words of Hobbes, the GOSS/SPLA top echelon seems to believe that it is sovereign and as such it must be in full control of the civil, military, judicial except the ecclesiastic powers। Hobbes helped the creation of modern states but the states of the 21st century which are based on strong democratic principles separated powers in a modern state and agreed that the people of any nation are sovereign. What seems to be the problem with GOSS/SPLA is their inability to deal with those who undermine the due process of the law by blocking the application of the law on equal basis and depriving the people of South Sudan of their sovereign rights?

Should these corrupt individuals be removed from power to avoid corruption as well as misinterpretation of the law? This may be obvious but it is unlikely because all of them are comrades-in-arms (tribes mates may be) and removing one or two of them may mean a lot of things to those individuals who maintain them, including losing political support base।

The GOSS, however, has to embark on a political awareness programme that should seriously aim at educating those individuals within the SPLM/A who have this misconceived believe that they are in GOSS to stay। They need to be told that governments are not like homes where people retire to. Governments are public institution from where people retire to homes. It should also be made categorically clear that governments are not and shall not be money-making institutions; and that those who are found making money from public institutions – however senior their positions are in government – ought to be tried on equal basis with other criminals.

The lack of due process of law in South Sudan is the main cause for the absence of equality before the law। Therefore, GOSS should not play innocent by burying its head on the sand with a view to ignoring the due process of law. Equality before the law cannot be applied in where there is no due process of law. It is time that the executive in South Sudan reactivates the judiciary to manage and interpret the laws correctly. The judiciary needs to apply law equally on all the citizens, including government officials by following the normally laid down legal procedures; especially those that sanction the stripping off of politicians and senior officers in the organised forces of their immunities to stand trial.

The absence of equality before the law has made some law abiding South Sudanese living abroad to refuse to return home। All South Sudanese follow the events that are taking place at home. Some are asking a lot of questions on hearing of illegitimate arrests and detention of their fellow citizens without the due process of the law. In fact it becomes difficult for someone to leave a country in which his/her rights, legal or otherwise, are respected and protected only to come to where those very rights, legal or otherwise, are violated by none other than the some senior officials in the government who are charged with the duty of protecting those basic rights in the first place.

South Sudanese in Diaspora do long so much for a faster return home. This could be made possible by GOSS which has to implement the due process of law that in turn will support the existence of equality before the law. There is no one in this era of the new world order who would want to stay in an environment which is lawless. Albert Einstein, a German-born theoretical physicist, once said: “As long as I have any choice, I will stay only in a country where political liberty, toleration, and equality of all citizens before the law are the rule।”

Therefore, GOSS needs to promote political liberty, toleration and equality of all citizens before the law as a rule. It is only then that South Sudanese in Diaspora and Northern Sudan will have the courage to return home, a safer home, not the one they ran away from during the war. It is only after the return of all South Sudanese that the unity of South Sudan – based on equality, freedom and justice for all – could be realised.

Free and fair elections

"The will of the people and free and fair elections are more powerful than any state machine, notwithstanding its strength and severity… undemocratic regimes cannot stop the realization of the people’s will and the basic rights." - Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko – http://usinfo.state.gov/dd/eng_democracy_dialogues/elections/elections_speech_excerpts.html

In the previous features, "Integral" discussed the lack of democratic principles in South Sudan and how such disunite the people of South Sudan. It observed the values or pillars of democracy: sovereignty of the people; government based upon consent of the governed; majority rule; minority rights; guarantee of basic human rights; free and fair elections; equality before the law; due process of law; constitutional limits on government; social, economic, and political pluralism; values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise, http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm.

It promised to examine each one of these pillars. It has already examined "sovereignty of the people"; "government based upon consent of the governed"; "majority rule"; and "Minority rights". Today, "Integral" will be looking at "free and fair elections" and its importance as stipulated in the Interim Constitution of South Sudan (ICSS) in Part II Bill of Rights; "Equality before the Law", article 18, which states that "all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law without discrimination as to race, ethnic origin, colour, sex, language, religious creed, political opinion, birth, locality or social status. For more information on ICSS, visit: http://www.chr.up.ac.za/undp/domestic/docs/c_SouthernSudan.pdf. Those willing to follow the "Integral" column right from its onset should visit http://ohiyok-newsanalysesonline.blogspot.com/.

Free, fair and elections are three words that have to be defined each separately to benefit some sections of "Integral" readership, especially the students. Free has two meanings. The first one means gratis. The second one means at liberty. Fair means unbiased and/or reasonable. Election means choosing by vote. In "Integral" context, therefore, free and fair elections could be rephrased as 'choosing by vote conducted at liberty and without bias.'

As one of the democratic pillars or values, free and fair election is perhaps the epicenter of democracy itself. There are many countries around the world that claim to be democratic or use election to demonstrate to the world that they do practice democracy. Democracy may be a word familiar to most, but it is a concept still misunderstood and misused in a time when totalitarian regimes and military dictatorships alike have attempted to claim popular support by pinning democratic labels upon themselves http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm.

True democracy, however, is exercised by governments that give credit and trust to their own citizens – governments that are resolved that the sovereignty of their nations is vested in their citizens. These governments, directed by the constitution of their nations, give their citizens the right to pass verdicts on them in the way they manage their affairs. Governments like these organise elections in such a way that the citizen of their nations decide – in a freewill – to vote men and women of their choices to parliaments, senates, presidencies, and indeed any other public offices.

Government of South Sudan (GoSS) has stipulated in ICSS Part I, Chapter I, 2 (1) Sovereign Authority of the People of Southern Sudan, that "without prejudice to Article 2 of the Interim National Constitution, sovereign authority in Southern Sudan is vested in the people and shall be exercised through their democratic and representative institutions established by this Constitution and elected by them in regular, free and fair elections. (2) The authority of government at all levels in Southern Sudan shall derive from the people and shall be exercised in accordance with their will, this Constitution and the law.

To relate free and fair elections to the concept of "Integral" column, "disunity in South Sudan", it is important to note that the non-observance of free and fair elections has brought about disunity in many parts of the globe. Therefore, as part of that globe, "Integral" is fully aware that GoSS has not conducted any elections. But it will sooner or later. This being the case, it is important that GoSS and the ruling party, Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), understand that non-observance of free and fair elections in South Sudan – in the near or far future – may not differentiate South Sudan from the dictatorial democracies around the globe. Kenya, Uganda and Zimbabwe offer good examples of how non-observance of free and fair elections caused disunity amongst the peoples of these countries. For the purpose of this feature, "Integral" will only highlight on the Kenyan presidential elections, as an example.

In Kenya, there were reports of wide rigging of votes and the quick swearing-in of President Mwai Kibaki was a testimony to this. How? Because the concept of free and fair elections cannot become practical unless the government in power ensures that the peoples' choice is the verdict needed to bring about a political change. The opposition could not have cried fowl if its observers had seen free and fair voting exercised. They did not see it and so they had to declare that the elections were not free and fair. The government refused to listen to them and instead rushed to swear-in the opponent of the opposition. The opposition leader was supposed to concede defeat and attend the swearing-in ceremony of his worthy opponent but he did not. This did not only cause disunity in Kenya but thousands of lives were lost.

In South Sudan there are very serious trends insinuating elections rigging in future. This statement may be misunderstood by fellow brothers and sisters in both GoSS and the SPLM for an unfounded accusation. But it is a fact that many members of the SPLM and Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) have been and continue to say GoSS came through a gun; and that they will not allow anybody to take it by a ballot box. Others are making strategies of having members of their ethnic and/or nationality groups elected from occupied territories within South Sudan.

Those who say that GoSS came through a gun; and that they will not allow anybody to take it by a ballot box are openly saying that there will be no elections. But should elections be sanctioned by all means, then elections will be rigged in order to maintain the status-quo with a view to enjoying what has been earned through the gun, GoSS.

Meanwhile, the strategy of illegally settling people in some parts of South Sudan amounts to a planned future neo rigging of elections. Since numbers decide in elections who lead, any of these settlers could be simply elected by his/her ethnic and/or nationality group illegally settled in an area where they become more than half of the original population. More than half of the population gives anybody a clear win and as such democracy, according to those who are selfish, could have spoken.

Why should anyone in his/her normal mind for example think that s/he as an Equatorian from Otuho nationality in Torit could move part of his/her clan to Bor and expect to win elections and represent the people of Bor? Why can't this Otuhoni relocate to Bor through legal means and seek for support of the people of Bor? How does someone expect to become popular in his/her own tribe and village and thinks that s/he could use such across the boundaries of his/her village? Does tribal leadership improve the chances of a tribal leader to become a national leader?

It is not possible for anyone to move his/her clan and expect to become popular in a territory in which s/he is regarded a squatter. S/he who imposes himself or herself on the people, including his/her own tribe, may not enjoy leadership no matter where s/he settles.

However, it is possible for someone to easily become popular in his/her own village and uses that across the boundaries. There are two things that would make this cross boundaries popularity possible: one, the use of tribal affiliation to promote the general good of mankind; and two, the need to acquire qualities that do not divide people on the basis of tribe, religion, creed, race and/or gender.

Tribal leadership does not improve the chances of a tribal leader, especially one who is addicted to his tribe and tries to use anything in his/her powers; be it public or otherwise to promote tribal interest. Leaders like this cannot go an inch from their villages. Even in their states chances of their political survival are limited unless of course the said state is made up of one tribe. Should that be the case, then clanism may be used to promote the interest of that clan. Leaders like this would continue deteriorating until they disappear in tribal chieftaincies.

South Sudan is made up of about 63 nationalities (http://www.gurtong.org/people.asp) and hundreds of tribes. Leaders within the South, especially those who are running the government of the day should really know that insinuations of rigging elections cannot promote popularity of any kind. Thus, those who might have found themselves within the rank and file of the national and state leaderships should know that democracy is void of rigging. There is no way anyone could just rig himself or herself into leadership without consequences. Those consequences are many and they all amalgamate to produce a serious disunity of the people, something that could easily be avoid by following the true values of democracy.

Insinuations to rig elections are not as dangerous as the actual rigging of elections. They simply represent the possible dangers of election rigging in future. This thus means that the current leadership of GoSS under H.E. 1st-Lt-Gen. Salva Kiir Mayardit needs to address a number of important issues like educating those who think that they cannot part with GoSS because they fought for it. Those who use as their tribal strategy the occupation of other peoples' lands in South Sudan in order to see the emergence of their tribesmen and women as members of parliament from where they are not part of historically. These are the only signs of future election rigging in South Sudan and could be dealt with now. Any feet dragging aimed at protecting the thinking of those expansionist South Sudanese is likely to produce bad results that are likely to affect the unity of South Sudanese people.

Al Bashir and Kiir: Please Discuss Matters Affecting the Future

The President of the Republic, H.E. Field Marshal Omar Hasan Ahmad Al Bashir, visited Juba on Wednesday, August 27th, 2008. This visit was aimed at holding joint council of ministers meeting to review the North-South agreement, its implementation and signing a number of feasibility studies on a number of projects in South Sudan, including dam construction in Equatoria region, the seat of the Government of South Sudan (GoSS) and the three State Governments of Eastern, Central and Western Equatoria.

The visit is the third in three years – that is to say ever since the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed on January 9th, 2005. This visit also appeared to be the first that went without any kind of intimidating statements or sounds from the pro-separatists in South Sudan as was the case in his visit to Juba immediately after the signing of the CPA; and the second CPA anniversary; in which the President and his First Vice delivered speeches critical of each other's party and government.

Agreements, feasibility studies and/or contracts that officially sanction the construction of dams in South Sudan, especially from H.E. President Al Bashir are necessary as they are likely to be welcomed by Egypt. It is worth noting that the history of the River Nile Basin Organisation (RNBO) has always seen Egypt getting up in arms whenever an RNBO member-state tries to construct a dam or divert Nile or any of its tributaries' water for local use.

In 1979, Egyptian President, Anwar Sadat, said that, “the only matter that could take Egypt to war again is water." In 1988, then Egyptian Foreign Minister, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who later became the United Nations’ Secretary-General, predicted that the next war in the Middle East would be fought over the waters of the Nile, not politics. Since then Egypt has threatened to bomb dam development in Sudan. It has also challenged Kenya’s rhetoric denouncing the 1929 and 1959 agreements and desire to withdraw from them as acts of war. It warned Tanzania over its plans to drain the Lake Victoria, http://www.fratfiles.com/essays/143511.html.

However, the construction of dams in South Sudan, especially the Fulla Falls in Nimule, Eastern Equatoria States, has been truly long over due. One would simply attribute this delay to the civil war in the Sudan but the truth is that there was no will from the successive regimes in Khartoum in the past to construct any dams in South Sudan.

One would wonder why it took President Nimeri 16 years to rule the Sudan and yet he turned a deaf ear and a blind eye on the feasibility studies that were done during that time to construct a dam in the Fulla Falls in Nimule! President Nimeri had about 12 of his 16 years' rule within the Addis Ababa Agreement government, which was popularly known as the Regional Government of South Sudan (RGoSS). This meant that Nimeiri, those in his government and those before him were not interested in constructing that dam; for fear that it was to cause them their relationship with Egypt; and that it was a project that would improve the economy of South Sudan.

According to the feasibility studies that were carried out before the civil war broke out in the Sudan in 1983, the RGoSS was made to understand that if constructed, the dam was to generate hydroelectric power enough to light the entire African continent let alone the Sudan. This was before the oil could be drilled and pumped into the market. Nimeiri and his officials refused to offer the South that opportunity to control the North in any way: economically or otherwise.

The President's decision to sign on the dam projects in South Sudan, including the Fulla Falls, is indeed a gesture of goodwill. This move is one of the many steps required by the people of South Sudan who believe that such moves do truly make unity of the Sudan attractive. There are many more steps that are needed by the people of the South that would increase the chances of making unity attractive.

The President's current visit to Juba, however, should have helped to improve the deteriorating relationship between President Al Bashir and his First Vice, Kiir. This is because the visit appeared to have been one of those rare visits in which President Al Bashir and his First Vice, Kiir, interacted without their usual tensions.

Thus, one would seriously hope that the two should seize the opportunity of their good relationship now to thoroughly discuss the dangers facing the future partnership; the forthcoming referendum; and unity of the Sudan versus separation of the South. For example, which amongst the Northern Sudanese parties is capable of working with the SPLM to implement the CPA, assuming that the NCP loses election? What are the chances of the CPA survival with a party other than the NCP? Which of the parties in the Sudan have the obligation to implement the CPA?

The forthcoming referendum has to be thoroughly discussed. Trying to suspend discussions on the forthcoming referendum may plunge this country into another serious civil war. This is because each of the two options would take both South and Northern Sudanese by surprise.

Thus, it is important to discuss aspects like those that make the unity of the Sudan attractive, at least for the people of South Sudan. For example, why should the people of the South insinuate opting out of Sudan's unity? Is it because they fear political domination by the North Sudan? Is it economic suppression or sanction of the South by the North which is the matter? Is it racism? Is it Shari'ah laws? These are frank questions that seriously need to be asked and sincere answers need to be given. It should be realised that the CPA has answered some of these questions while others remained unanswered.

Starting from this article, sincerely, it is not difficult to deduce which of the questions above has the CPA answered and which it didn't. One of these questions is Shari'ah Islamic law. Let no one misunderstand this author on this issue of Shari'ah because when it was declared upon the Sudanese people in September 1983, it was declared by a political decree. This being the case, it certainly needs a political analysis to reflect its impact on the non-Muslims in the Sudan.

Shari'ah law is definitely what the people of the Northern Sudan want, one would like to assume. It is the right of the people of North Sudan to have Shari'ah all over the North. But Shari'ah is not only applied on Muslims alone – it is also being applied on the non-Muslims in Khartoum and other parts of the North. There are Northern Sudanese who say Shari'ah must stay and whether the South Sudanese like it or not it is there to stay. Those Northern Sudanese who say whether South Sudanese like it or not Shari'ah is there to stay are simply asking the South Sudanese to choose between living with and without Shari'ah and this amount to a direct call for separation by North Sudanese. It is like definitely making it simple to choose from the two options. Why is it that simple? It is because South Sudanese have gone through very serious suffering and faced so many problems related with alcohol brewing and drinking in Khartoum and other parts of the North. Some have had Shari'ah directly applied on them when found drunk or brewing; something they don't have to go through when they are in the South.

The unity of the Sudan cannot exist with Shari'ah denying non-Muslims their rights, especially within the national capital, Khartoum. This author wrote in 2003 on the "Nakuru Document and the secularization of the national capital" and seriously supported the rights of Muslims in Khartoum State, http://ohiyok-newsanalysesonline.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-02-05T04%3A58%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=7. He is supporting the rights of Muslims in Khartoum and the entire North today and forever but would like to ask this question: how could South Sudanese become part of the national capital, if Shari'ah denies them the right of being so?

So if separating from Northern Sudan would keep them away from Shari'ah, it should be noted by all Northern Sudanese that South Sudanese, including some of their Muslims who drink alcohol may opt for separation. Those who might have misunderstood that, by allowing Shari'ah to continue in the North during Naivasha talks need to know that it was never meant that it should be applied on non-Muslims in Northern Sudan. It is now three years after the CPA and Shari'ah is still being applied on the South Sudanese in Northern Sudan; is this fair; how attractive could unity be in a situation like this?

Some of the readers would like to know whether or not the issues of Shari'ah Islamic laws were addressed in Naivasha? The answer is that they were addressed but Northerners who negotiated the CPA took it for a victory and believed that they had won to maintain Shari'ah in the North.

Meanwhile, the South Sudanese who were in Naivasha did console themselves for losing to convince their Northern counterparts on dropping out Shari'ah. They believed that the South was to go and so there was no need discussing something that was irrelevant to South Sudanese at the time and in future.

Should the people of the North insist that Shari'ah must stay? Well, that is absolutely their right and as such H.E. President Al Bashir should be frank to tell his First Vice that it is not possible for Shari'ah to go. This frank statement, however, would be what H.E. the Vice President will convey to the people of the South through their representatives and the results of the referendum should not be blamed on anyone but perhaps on the will of both: the North and South Sudanese people. This would help avoid any future disagreements that might lead to yet another useless war.

Should the people of the South opt out of the unity of the Sudan, however, the Northern Sudanese should not blame them. Instead, they should start working on the possibilities of confederation in the Sudan as a whole, http://ohiyok-newsanalysesonline.blogspot.com/2008/02/separation-as-option-in-south-sudan_05.html. This confederation will be the only alternative that will give everybody in the Sudan what s/he deserves. The modalities for this confederation will need an inter-party conference to discuss them. One good proposal that could be given to support the governance of such a confederation is a rotating presidency. S/he who becomes the president of the confederation will have to rule the confederation from his/her confederation headquarters to avoid the inconveniences of secular and Shari'ah laws that would be adopted by various confederations.

There has to be a way out of the hurdles which the Sudanese themselves put in front of them as they try to end their differences. It is time for physical and non-physical confrontations between the children of one nation to end. Trying to ignore that the Sudan has no problems, even after the CPA, would be an under statement that may plunge the Sudan into yet another chaos.

Each group of people in the Sudan deserves to have what they want – at least as a human right. Muslims have every right to profess their religion and operate under Shari'ah. Christians have the right to profess their religion and operate under secular laws. Those who follow traditional beliefs have the right to profess their type of traditional belief. Those who do not fall in any of the three categories have the right to exist. The CPA, which has become part of this country's constitution, supports this. Sudan's Interim Constitution Part I, Chapter I, Religious Rights; states that, the State shall respect the religious rights to:-

(a) Worship or assemble in connection with any religion or belief and to establish and maintain places for these purposes; (b) Establish and maintain appropriate charitable or humanitarian institutions; (c) Acquire and possess movable and immovable property and make, acquire and use the necessary articles and materials related to the rites or customs of a religion or belief; (d) Write, issue and disseminate religious publications; (e) Teach religion or belief in places suitable for these purposes; (f) Solicit and receive voluntary financial and other contributions from individuals, private and public institutions; (g) Train, appoint, elect or designate by succession appropriate religious leaders called for by the requirements and standards of any religion or belief; (h) Observe days of rest, celebrate holidays and ceremonies in accordance with the precepts of religious beliefs; and (i) Communicate with individuals and communities in matters of religion and belief at national and international levels, http://www.chr.up.ac.za/undp/domestic/docs/c_Sudan.pdf.

The President's decision to sanction the construction of dams in South Sudan in order to boost power generation is a move that is trying to first, assert his responsibility over the development of the entire country, including South Sudan; second, enhance; and third, strengthen the basis for this country's unity. This is because the dams, once they become operational and generate power in the South, will improve the South Sudan's chances towards development and economic growth in general. With power, it will be easy to introduce heavy and light industries and save hard currency spent on imported items. With power, effective communications and rural electrification programme will become permanent realities; thus making true Dr Garang's notion of taking towns to the rural people.

It is, however, the hope of the peace-loving people of South Sudan that the good relationship that exist between the partners, especially of late, continues to improve so that more developmental projects come home to South Sudan. Three years of the CPA have just gone by and what the people of the South have achieved from the central government is the signing of the agreements and/or contracts on dams' construction and other national projects in South Sudan. These projects and many more could have increased had the relationship between the partners been good.

Guarantee of basic human rights

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood — Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

In the previous features, "Integral" discussed the lack of democratic principles in South Sudan and how such disunite the people of South Sudan. It observed the values or pillars of democracy: sovereignty of the people; government based upon consent of the governed; majority rule; minority rights; guarantee of basic human rights; free and fair elections; equality before the law; due process of law; constitutional limits on government; social, economic, and political pluralism; values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise, (http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm).

It promised to examine each one of these pillars. It has already examined "sovereignty of the people"; "government based upon consent of the governed"; "majority rule"; and "Minority rights". Today, "Integral" is looking at "Guarantee of basic human rights" and observe whether or not basic human rights of the people of South Sudan are guaranteed by the government of South Sudan (GoSS) as stipulated in the Interim Constitution of South Sudan (ICSS). But first, let us see the meanings of each one of the words forming the basis for this argument: guarantee; basic; human; and rights.

Guarantee as a word has many meanings but for the purpose of this column, assurance – one of those many meanings – will be used. Basic, also with many entries in the dictionary, but for the purpose of this column, central – one of those many entries – will be used. Human, on the other hand, means manlike or that which is mortal – subjected to death. Rights mean those which are central in human need and deserved, especially in civil and political life. (Collins, 2000:274; 51; 298). Therefore, the phrase, guarantee of basic human rights could be rephrased as: assurance of central or pivotal desires of all South Sudanese.

Human rights refer to the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled. Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and socio-cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education; free and fair elections; and the right to live free from discrimination on the basis of sex, race and religion

Every culture and major religions of the world recognise human rights in some form. For example, the Christian religion's Ten Commandments: "Thou shall not kill", http://www.christianhomesite.com/cherryvale/text/10command6.html is an expression of the right to life that is also recognised by all religions and governments of the world. South Sudanese have the same human rights entitlements; men, women and children, rich and poor, powerful and weak, beautiful or ugly, able or disabled, all tribes, all nationalities and faiths.

To respect someone's human rights means that you value another person as a fellow member of the human race rather than judge them on their appearance, background, race or gender, tribe or region. To respect human rights means that you believe everyone should live free from discrimination and have equal opportunity. This does not mean that differences among people should be ignored; but that we agree to treat people equally and the problems that exist, fairly and reasonably, regardless of the differences that exist.

In South Sudan, some individuals within GoSS have been seen to discriminate the people on the basis of which tribe does one come from; political parties does someone belong to; and phrases like; 'if you are not with us then you are with the enemy.' Tribalism and nepotism have both been seriously used by some individuals within the GoSS to draw lines between who is loyal to SPLM/A and who is not. Tribalism and nepotism have both frustrated the efforts of many South Sudanese who are seeking and continue to seek employment.

Tribalism and nepotism are making few individuals in GoSS acquire a new understanding that states: 'since others did not participate in the liberation struggle, they should not expect to get jobs, own lands and even have the right to live'. "Integral" will try to examine origins of tribalism and nepotism and their impact on the basic human rights of the people in South Sudan; and how such widens rather than closes the gap of disunity in South Sudan.

Tribalism is a noun that means "loyalty to a tribe." It originates from another noun: tribe, which means a "group of clans or families believed to have a common ancestry", (Collins, 2000:635).

"Integral" had made its views on tribalism very clear in one of its features which dealt with tribalism. It categorically stated that tribalism is an important organizational setup in societies because it ensures unity of a tribe. It eases common difficulties in achieving unity of purpose in a tribe. It secures the tribe from any dangers in case it is threatened. If led by wise people, it could generally work towards ensuring universal peace and establishment of law and order within a larger community of people or state. "Integral" added that, for tribalism to achieve universal peace, it has to explore newer horizons like looking beyond the tribe. Social Contract theorists would understand this perfectly well as Thomas Hobbes states here bellow:

"Men can be expected to construct a Social Contract that will afford them a life other than that available to them in the State of Nature. This contract is constituted by two distinguishable contracts. First, they must agree to establish society by collectively and reciprocally renouncing the rights they had against one another in the State of Nature. Second, they must imbue some one person or assembly of persons with the authority and power to enforce the initial contract. In other words, to ensure their escape from the State of Nature, they must both agree to live together under common laws, and create an enforcement mechanism for the social contract and the laws that constitute it" – Thomas Hobbes.

However, it should be understood that by all the readers of this column that it is human to practice tribalism but not nepotism for the general welfare of mankind. Nepotism is the true origin of tribalism. Some of the readers would certainly beg to disagree with this notion. However, they should hear out this argument.

Nepotism means favouritism in business shown only to relatives and friends (Collins, 2000:409). Given the extension of families in African households and knowing the fact that the first friends anyone from a particular tribe would tend to make are people from his/her own tribe, it is obvious that the bond of friendship is greater at the age set levels. In most cases, age sets grow up in a village and as such tribe binds them more than anything else.

Language, which is the main binding aspect in tribal existence, plays a greater role in provoking memories of childhood. Once provoked, the bond between those friends would grow stronger and stronger to the extent that one would be excited and do almost anything to the other friend without necessarily realizing it. This cannot go without stepping on a few toes; and it is the continued stepping on other people's toes, which increases in degree that eventually turns out to become tribalism.

In South Sudan, the Dinka were the first to be accused of practicing tribalism. This happened during the initial formation of the Anyanya Movement in 1963 when Sudan African National Union (SANU) split into two, http://www.sudaneseonline.com/earticle2005/may12-89513.shtml This was not as serious as it became to be known later. After the Addis Ababa Agreement of 1972, the Dinka tribe was believed to be practicing excessive tribalism. Equatorians and other smaller tribes in South Sudan believed that the Dinka tribe had occupied almost all the sensitive position in the Regional Government of South Sudan then known as the High Executive Council. That was not tribalism but rather an overstretched nepotism, one would state.

When the South was divided into three provinces called regions, http://www.islamfortoday.com/sudan.htm the Dinka went to the bush in mid 1983 to form the SPLM/A. In the three Southern regions tribalism was noticed by the minorities in each of these regions. In Upper Nile for example, the Nuer were said to be dominating. In Equatoria, the Bari tribe in Central Equatoria were said to be dominating the other tribes. These dominations were felt because nepotism was at its height but not tribalism as such. The further re-division of the South into ten states caused the accusation of tribes like Bari in Central Equatoria; Otuho in Eastern Equatoria, Nuer in Upper Nile, Zande in Western Equatoria; just to mention but a few; as dominating in their respective states.

If excessive nepotism that is now being practiced by almost every tribe in South Sudan has turned into tribalism, it is because the GoSS has failed to outlaw it. The author of "Integral" has made it clear to a few friends in the late 1980s of the last century that the SPLM/A had the opportunity to outlaw tribalism but it encouraged it instead. "Integral" now believes that the overstretched nepotism could be simply addressed by GoSS. GoSS is in a position to request for legislation from the SSLA that could outlaw nepotism and any symptoms of tribalism.

Having failed to address nepotism in the SPLM/A as a movement then and now SPLM/A as a government, the degree of nepotism has heightened. This heightened nepotism has caused the suffering of very many South Sudanese. Some individuals have used it to rob people of their properties such as land. Physically torturing innocent South Sudanese and detaining them in jails for years and years without trial. People have been killed as they tried to defend themselves from being robbed, raped etc; the list is long of the many atrocities committed against the innocent South Sudan in the name of this excessive nepotism, which in no doubt has now seriously developed into a fully-fledged tribalism.

Majority of the people of South Sudan, especially those who do belong to minority tribes have each seen the ugliness of tribalism and nepotism in South Sudan. Some of them have been made to believe that they in fact are in South Sudan by mistake. Equatorians for that matter have been told to go back to Kenya, Uganda, DR Congo and the Central African Republic. A few individuals from the SPLM/A have made this clear to many Equatorians in many occasions. There are many cases that could not even be addressed by the land commission in the state governments, let alone the GoSS because many senior SPLM/A officials – extremely powerful – are involved.

The security apparatus in South Sudan, including the ministry that is in charge of the security and that in charge of legal affairs have reflected the seriousness of nepotistic exercise. That is not a problem still but again a few individuals within the security and the ministries mentioned are not working for the general good of the people of South Sudan. This has resulted into the promotion of nepotistic interests and has been impacted on those killed, tortured and got their lands seized by none other than those individuals who have been employed through nepotism and are in their offices to protect nepotism.

There could be nothing more abusing to a person's basic human rights than being told that you are a foreigner in your own land; this is segregation on the basis of tribe. There is nothing more abusing to a human right than being protected by a tribal security, one which pays loyalty to a tribe and not the general public of South Sudan. There is nothing more abusing of human rights than taking the life of a countryman considered a traitor; torturing a countryman considered an enemy; and nothing could be more abusing when a person's land is seized by the force of arms.

All the above have been allowed to happen because the decision-makers in South Sudan are incapable of stopping them. It appears that anyone who intends to stop these ugly practices will have to note that s/he may lose popularity in the tribe and instead of stopping it; s/he would turn a blind eye instead.

The deliberate turning of blind eyes on things that are happening in South Sudan have seriously caused disunity between the people of South Sudan. Many minorities within the South have realised that South Sudan may not be a place for their survival and as such may choose to leave the South altogether. This is probably what the few individuals who are causing havoc in South Sudan want. But the serious politicians should really consider that they will be losers in a case like this? It is obviously he who intends to rule who must guarantee the basic human rights of all the citizens in the country. Because he who wants to rule will need as many countrymen as possible in order to win the elections. There can be no shortcuts in situations like these unless a politician is attempting a political suicide.

As mentioned earlier in this column, it is human to practice tribalism but a tribe that practices nepotism to the extent that it forgets the purpose for his/her being in a public office should be made to know that human rights of many are compromised by him/her. Thus, one would argue, that there is obviously no reason for any tribe in South Sudan to insist that it mainly fought the war and as such tribes X, Y and Z which did not participate in the war have to be physically abused, robbed of their belongings, tortured or even killed. It is the physical abuse of innocent citizens, robbing of their belongings, torturing and even killing them – in a nutshell: violating peoples' basic human rights in the name of tribalism and nepotism.

It is such violations of peoples' basic human rights which GoSS needs to know that amount to its failure to guarantee basic human rights of all South Sudanese. It will be very unfortunate if the GoSS cannot realise that her continuation to sanction practices such as that of excessive nepotism and allowing it to develop into a fully-fledged tribalism is the direct cause of disunity in South Sudan. South Sudan is disunited and this disunity has been caused by a mere misbehaviour of few SPLM/A officials who could have otherwise been controlled for the general good of the people of South Sudan.

It is not too late for SPLM/A as the party running the South now to address the issues that cause disunity in South Sudan. African National Congress in South African did bring unity in South Africa by creating a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/trc_frameset.htm The TRC did not only unite the blacks in South Africa but also the whites found South Africa a home compared to none, irrespective of what they did to the blacks during the apartheid era.

Minority Rights

If we are to achieve a richer culture, rich in contrasting values, we must recognize the whole gamut of human potentialities, and so weave a less arbitrary social fabric, one in which each diverse human gift will find a fitting place – Margaret Mead

In the previous features, "Integral" discussed the lack of democratic principles in South Sudan and how such disunite the people of South Sudan. It observed the values or pillars of democracy: sovereignty of the people; government based upon consent of the governed; majority rule; minority rights; guarantee of basic human rights; free and fair elections; equality before the law; due process of law; constitutional limits on government; social, economic, and political pluralism; values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise, (http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm).

It promised to look into each one of these pillars. It has already examined "sovereignty of the people"; "government based upon consent of the governed"; and "majority rule." Today, it is looking at "Minority Rights" and evaluate the relationship between the majority tribes/parties and those that fall under the category of the minority in South Sudan.

Minority Rights is a terminology used to describe what is morally and legally justifiable to a person, group of people and nationalities regarded as minorities around the world, including sexual minorities in some parts of the world, especially in the Western World. Linking this up to this column's argument, it's important to note that South Sudan has many tribes and political parties.

There are majority and minority tribes in South. There are also majority and minority parties in South Sudan. Dinka and Nuer are majority tribes in South Sudan and as such parties led by these large tribes would always become majority parties. This is true because in order to make parties look more nationalistic in character, parties all over Africa welcome into their membership people from other tribes.

How do the majority tribes and parties in South Sudan behave towards the minority ones? Do they take into consideration the plight of the minority tribes and parties? Do they think that it is morally and legally right to protect the rights of minority tribes and parties in South Sudan just like it is supposed to be the case in this contemporary era of the 21st century?

It would actually be difficult to answer the questions above or to discuss a particular tribe and/or political party before mentioning which tribe ruled South Sudan, when and how it behaved during their tenure in office? South Sudan has witnessed the administration of two largest tribes in South Sudan: the Nuer tribe lead by United Democratic Salvation Front, formed during the Khartoum Peace Agreement. The government was led by the Coordinating Council for South Sudan (CCSS). The second one is the Dinka tribe which dominates the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A). The government of South Sudan (GoSS) was created by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). These two tribes will offer "Integral" this opportunity to observe what majority parties and tribes could do in South Sudan when in power.

Before observing the questions above, let us look at what the terminology 'Minority Rights' embodies – at least from the scientific point of view. Before that though, let us note that the concurrent usage of tribe and political party in the context of South Sudan is that tribes in South Sudan do dominate political parties. In other words, tribes follow their traditional (tribal) leaderships wherever they are in a political party.

The term minority rights embodies two separate concepts: first, normal individual rights as applied to members of racial; ethnic; class; religious; linguistic or sexual minorities; and second: collective rights accorded to minority groups. The term may also apply simply to individual rights of anyone who is not part of a majority decision.

Civil rights movements often seek to ensure that individual rights are not denied on the basis of membership in a minority group. There are many political bodies which also feature minority group rights. This might be seen in affirmative action quotas, or in guaranteed minority representation in a consociational state.

The majority tribes in South Sudan, especially some individuals within the SPLM/A have never hidden their intentions to dominate. Those few individuals within the Dinka and Nuer communities have said over and over that they are just large enough; and that they have to dominate whether anybody likes it or not. These individuals are on record and whether or not they said or are saying this with the help of anybody, it is immaterial. Because domination, oppression and suppression of smaller tribes or parties by majority ones is a direct abuse of minority rights. Feeling no remorse because someone badly needs power is lack of consideration to the rights of minority groups within an entity.

In early 1980s, South Sudan was made to believe that it had taken the British 50 years to rule the Sudan; and that it will take the Dinka tribe alone100 years to rule the Equatorians and of course by extension the rest of South Sudan. It is wondering to imagine how many more years will the Nuer ask for if the domination is to alternate between majority tribes in South Sudan!

During their era which was ushered in by the Khartoum Peace Agreement (KPA), however, the Nuer tribe had asserted that it was their time to dominate for a while. With no shame, the Nuer tribe seriously dominated the rest of South Sudan in the absence of the Dinka between 1998 and 2005. These seven years of the CCSS existence were led by the Nuer – in the persons of Dr Riek Machar Teny-Dhurgon, Lt-Gen. (Rtd) Gatlwak Deng and Dr Riek Gai Kok.

This mutual ambition to dominate has encouraged and continues to encourage the abuse of minority rights in South Sudan. The minorities in South Sudan were not happy then and are not happy today because they believe that the domination and the abuse of their minority rights continue unabated. Some of these minorities do ask as to when they will be happy in their own home if they cannot be happy after their liberation from the yoke of oppression? Most of them see no moral and legal justification for what they truly see as oppression extended to them by none other than a brother, a liberator.

It is a moral and legal obligation for the majority party or tribe to respect the rights of the minorities in South Sudan. Persistence that majority tribes ought to rule and thus abuse the rights of the minorities would only work to create differences between the people of South Sudan. These differences in fact have already developed into dislike – to say more strongly – hatred. Hatred has never and will never promote the cohesion of the people of South Sudan. Cohesion should be the thing to aim at badly to help advance the cause of unity between the South Sudanese people.

"Integral" would like to look at other perspectives of minority rights as conceived by some national and international organisations around the world, including the United Nations. This is important so that the reader understands that minority rights are guaranteed by law in some civilized countries around the world, including those the people in South Sudan admire. It should thus be noted that some of the perspectives highlighted bellow did exist for quit a long time as could be observed from the Hungarian Diet (parliament).

The question to ask is: are the educated amongst the majority tribes and parties in South Sudan unable to explore knowledge and understand that it is morally and legally incorrect to suppress minorities? The answer is no; the educated amongst the majority have explored the world, acquired knowledge and know that it is morally and legally wrong to oppress minorities but they do not care. It is the 'I don't care attitude' which will land all those who deliberately oppressed minorities into future troubles. Suppression of any kind, let alone that of the minorities, is a crime and those responsible will have to be brought to book when charges are brought against them in future.

Minority rights as conceived by some national and international organisations around the world, reveal that, the first minority rights were created by Diet of Hungary in 1849. Minority rights, as applied to ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities and indigenous peoples, are an integral part of international human rights law. Like children's rights, women's rights and refugee rights, minority rights are a legal framework designed to ensure that a specific group which is in a vulnerable, disadvantaged or marginalised position in society, is able to achieve equality and is protected from persecution.

The first post-war international treaty to protect minorities, designed to protect them from the greatest threat to their existence, was the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Subsequent human rights standards that codify minority rights include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 27), the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, two Council of Europe treaties (the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, and the OSCE Copenhagen Document of 1990.

Minority rights cover protection of existence, protection from discrimination and persecution, protection and promotion of identity, and participation in political life. To protect minority rights, many countries have specific laws and/or commissions or ombudsman institutions (for example the Hungarian Parliamentary Commissioner for National and Ethnic Minorities' Rights).

While initially, the United Nations treated indigenous peoples as a sub-category of minorities, there is an expanding body of international law specifically devoted to them, in particular Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization. Attempts to codify the rights of sexual minorities in international human rights law have met with strong opposition from a number of member states of the United Nations.

Having observed minority rights as conceived by some national and international organisations around the world, including the United Nations, it is only fair to call on GoSS, led by the First Vice-President of the republic, H.E. 1st-Lt-Gen. Salva Kiir Mayardit, to implement the protection of minority groups in South Sudan. The protection of minority rights is enshrined in the constitution of South Sudan in Part Two: bill of rights.

This call does not mean that the situation in South Sudan has gone out of hand in as far as the infringements on the rights of minorities are concerned. The situation will go out of hand if it is ignored and it is on this background that the leadership of GoSS is hereby asked to prevent this from happening. As mentioned earlier in this column, minorities are starting to develop hatred towards the majority tribes. This is caused by the failure to address issues as they happen.

Majority tribes and parties in South Sudan did and continue to do a lot of bad things against the minority tribes and parties and nothing is done to them. Even those from the majority tribes or parties arrested for committing crimes are sometimes released or set free, thus escaping justice. It is understood that Rome was not built in a day; but signs of building Rome did appear from the first day. It is the signs of building the South that the people want to see now in order to believe that the future is indeed bright.

Majority Rule

As long as the differences and diversities of mankind exist, democracy must allow for compromise, for accommodation, and for the recognition of differences – Eugene McCarthy

In the previous features, "Integral" discussed the lack of democratic principles in South Sudan and how such disunite the people of South Sudan. It observed the values or pillars of democracy: sovereignty of the people; government based upon consent of the governed; majority rule; minority rights; guarantee of basic human rights; free and fair elections; equality before the law; due process of law; constitutional limits on government; social, economic, and political pluralism; values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise, (http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm).

It promised to look into each one of these pillars. It has already examined "sovereignty of the people" and "government based upon consent of the governed." Today, it is looking at "majority rule."

Majority has many meanings but for the purpose of this column, "Integral" will choose one of the meanings: popularity to suit the argument. Rule, like majority, has many meanings too but again for the purpose of this column, it will choose two: authority and government. Thus, majority rule could be described as a popular authority or government (of a political party) elected into power by the people; and that it has won more seats – 51% and above in parliament and forms a government or rules the country. This normally takes place in countries that exercise democracy and embrace its pillars as the basis for continuity and survival in modern politics.

Majority rule is a decision rule that makes one of two alternatives the "winner", based on which has more than half the votes. It is notable in that it is the binary decision rule used most often in influential decision-making bodies, including the legislatures of democratic nations. Some people have recommended against the use of majority rule, at least under certain circumstances, due to an alleged trade-off between the benefits of majority rule and other values important to democracy. Most famously, it has been feared that majority rule leads to a "tyranny of the majority", and the use of supermajoritarian rules have been recommended in its place. However, some voting theorists have argued that these fears are unfounded and majority rule may actually be the best rule to protect minorities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule).

As one of the democratic pillars, majority rule is practiced in the Government of South Sudan (GoSS). SPLM has 70% of power in South Sudan's legislature, executive and a little more than 70% in the judiciary; and 100% in SPLA. This was provided for by the CPA. However, this overwhelming majority rule by SPLM has been seen showing serious symptoms of tyranny of the majority. The questions that could be asked in order to link majority rule up to this column's main focus – disunity in South Sudan – are: could tyranny of the majority help the people of the South to unite? If not, why not?

The SPLM as a majority ruling party in South Sudan came to power through a protracted liberation struggle. It is trying its best to behave like a non-corrupt and civilized government and to accommodate all South Sudanese into GoSS. The policy of GoSS, like that of any modern government in this contemporary era, should be to create job opportunities and offer employment to all the South Sudanese irrespective of their various social setups. This 'should-be' policy, however, has been seriously damaged by few individuals within GoSS who think that tribalism and nepotism – corruption in general indeed – form the basis for establishing GoSS and the modern state of the South.

These corrupt individuals have always said that they are the majority in the South and corrupt or not they are there to stay. As a result, there are no equal opportunities for employment for South Sudanese.

More so, some South Sudanese have suffered under the GoSS and its affiliated organs as well as the SPLM. Innocent people under the leadership of GoSS have been killed, tortured, robbed of their lands, you name it.

By and large these corrupt individuals have been taking the law into their own hands. This kind of behaviour whether or not it is practiced by individuals or majority of people within the GoSS means nothing but application of tyranny by majority SPLM members in GoSS, including SPLA.

This tyrannical behaviour has clearly given an impression to the South Sudanese that GoSS is not a government for all. This kind of attitude has alienated many South Sudanese from GoSS and so it has caused the GoSS its serious efforts of trying to unite the people of South Sudan and behave like a modern government. Thus, it means that tyranny of the majority in GoSS cannot help the unity of South Sudanese। Inequality of any nature in any nation could be a direct cause of disunity, let alone being a direct source of conflict.

To ensure that the majority rule of SPLM and any other party in future in South Sudan protects the minority rights, GoSS may need a body charged with the protection of minority rights। This body should ensure that there are no infringements of any kind into the rights of the minority in South Sudan. It should also develop awareness programmes that should educate all the political parties in South Sudan on the importance of respecting human rights in general. The unity of the people of South Sudan would not become a reality until when the majority learns to hear the voice of the minority and regard it as that of an equal.

Majority rule perceives all voices as equal. This presupposes an abstraction of all concrete relationships in which a decision-maker is involved: (a) it matters not if someone is 5’7“ or six-foot-three or fat or thin; (b) irrelevant if you come from a distinguished family or a rich one or one that exercises political influence; (c) immaterial your educational background or literacy; (d) you can be 60 or 30 years of age; (e) neither your occupation nor your employment or marital status or the fact of children or not is of any importance whatsoever; (f) and it is completely beside the point what you may or may not have achieved in your life and your personal prestige or lack thereof. Majority rule is a radical principle that makes all voters equal. The extent of this equality becomes more abstruse the greater the social, economic and cultural differences among voters. This equality is no mere fiction, for there are real consequences involved ― namely resolutions. But all this applies to a definite sphere of social life, namely the political one, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule.

"Integral" believes that the majority within the SPLM/A – those who went to fight for a genuine cause of South Sudan – shall prevail over those corrupt individuals who only think for themselves and not the people of South Sudan. South Sudan is home for all: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Democracy, which every nation aspires to practice better than other nations and within which majority rule is based, accommodates the good, the bad and the ugly. It uses the rule of law to contain the bad and the ugly in behaviours but not in appearance. Majority rule in South Sudan should thus respect the good, the bad and the ugly in appearance because each has valued vote as the other.

Government Based Upon Consent of the Governed

You can only govern men by serving them. The rule is without exception – Victor Kiam

In the previous feature, "Integral" observed the values or pillars of democracy: sovereignty of the people; government based upon consent of the governed; majority rule; minority rights; guarantee of basic human rights; free and fair elections; equality before the law; due process of law; constitutional limits on government; social, economic, and political pluralism; values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise, http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm).

The readers who, for a reason or more, took democracy for granted would realise that there is truly more into democracy than meets the naked eye. Thus, to be fair to the argument that 'the shortage in desire or need to accept or welcome the tenets, doctrines, ethics or dogmas of democracy is the most serious cause of disunity in South Sudan', the above-mentioned values or pillars of democracy should really be looked at one by one and seen whether or not they are applied by SPLM/A and GoSS to enhance unity in South Sudan. "Integral" has already looked at the "Sovereignty of the People."

The second pillar of democracy, which is the feature of today, means that any government claiming to be democratic should be based on the consent of the governed – the people. It literally means that there is absolutely nothing that affects the lives of people which the government (legislature and executive) could or can do without the consent or agreement of the governed.

Relating this to South Sudan and GoSS situation in particular, it would only be fair to ask a few questions so as to understand whether or not the GoSS is entirely based upon the consent of the governed. Before asking such questions, however, it would be mature enough to think for those who would argue for and against this thinking that the GoSS needs the consent of anybody to function.

There are those who say GoSS is empowered by the CPA and the CPA were negotiated by the peoples' representatives and thus GoSS is based upon the consent of the governed. Others simply say that the CPA is a property of SPLM/A only and that is why SPLM/A took 70 and gave the people 30 percent of power sharing in South Sudan. "Integral" agrees with the notion that the CPA was negotiated by the peoples' representatives, imposed or otherwise; and that GoSS is based upon the consent of the governed. However, it is those that "Integral" agrees with who actually are causing disunity in South Sudan by contradicting themselves every now and then. Sometimes they say one thing and their actions would reveal another.

These are the South Sudanese members of SPLM/A who find it so difficult to differentiate between SPLM/A, GoSS and themselves as part of the populace in South Sudan. These few individuals (hereinafter referred to as 'notorious individuals'), by their continued actions, reveal that the GoSS was and remains the result of a hard-fought liberation struggle and so needs no consent from anyone to function. These notorious individuals are also supported by some individuals they use as conduits to channel their notoriety to the states. They and their conduits say 'GoSS and they are there to stay whether anyone likes it or not.' These notorious individuals have gone as far as saying that: 'we got it trough the barrel of the gun and thus no one can take it through a ballot box.' The missing link here could be the difficulty to understand the concept of 'governed.'

But these notorious individuals know that the South is not their property or entrepreneur in order for them to risk profit-making. GoSS is and will remain to be the government of the people and for the people of South Sudan.

It was earned through a protracted struggle in which lives of great sons and daughters of South Sudan were sacrificed not from the yester days only but from time immemorial.

However, there is one thing which is relieving in all these: the agreement of the majority in South Sudan which identifies itself with the CPA which they believe gave birth to GoSS. This will also mean that this majority too agrees that the GoSS is based upon the consent of the governed because it was negotiated by the peoples' representatives. But how much legislation has the South Sudan Legislative Assembly (SSLA) debated upon and passed on behalf of the governed? How much of those legislation were made with the consent of the governed? Did the legislation made require the consent of the governed? Did the SSLA at one point in time of its existence ever requested recess to get the consent of the governed when faced with some tougher legislation?

What about the executive – that is GoSS? Has it ever taken the people – the governed – into consideration when dealing with matters that concern them? How many times have the people in the South complained about one or two executive decisions that affected their lives? How many times has GoSS intervened in the very many cases that directly affected the lives of the governed in South Sudan?

The same questions would apply to the State legislative assemblies and state executives or cabinets throughout the ten states in South Sudan.

Those notorious individuals who see themselves as the South and the South as they would not hesitate to say: 'well, the GoSS was not elected after all and so to hell with the consent of the governed!' This statement, however, would negate the fact that the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) came as a direct result of the peoples' struggle. It would also negate the fact that there was a struggle meant to liberate the people of South Sudan from the yolk of the oppressor. Looking at it from an exactly opposite dimension, one would clearly see that the purported struggle – in the understanding of these notorious individuals – meant to replace what was called 'Arab oppression' by their oppression. This would be devastating to the general idea of liberation, which is selfless and means sacrifice on behalf of the oppressed.

A government based upon the consent of the governed is one which looks at the people as the main reason for its existence. In other words, a government based on the consent of the governed cannot work contrary to the peoples' needs but rather for their general good.

"Consent of the governed" is based on a political theory by an English political scientist, John Locke. The founders of the United States believed in John Locke's political theory of a state built upon the consent of "free and equal" citizens; a state otherwise conceived would lack the legitimacy and the authority to exercise legal authority stating that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power are, or ought to be, derived from the people or society over which that power is exercised.

The GoSS under the leadership of SPLM/A has to realise that there are no shortcuts to a leadership that would last forever. The only way to prolong leadership, since there is no such thing as lasting leadership, is to govern with the consent of the governed. To encourage a government that is based upon the consent of the governed would also encourage the promotion of unity of the people. This indeed is the aim of this column: to encourage the unity of the people of South Sudan so that they could speak in one voice whenever necessary.