South Sudan Post-Independence: "When Elephants Fight, it is the Grass that Suffers"

By Hanna Gros, 1L

South Sudan gained its independence in 2011, after decades of civil war between the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM, now the ruling party in South Sudan) and the Sudan Armed Forces. However, not even three years later, the South Sudanese are encountering a crisis that many fear is escalating into civil war. In July 2013, President Salva Kiir dismissed Vice President, Kier Machar, along with other senior government officials. In December, Machar responded with an alleged coup attempt, and soon after, fighting broke out between government forces and troops loyal to Machar. After thousands of deaths and even more displacements within a matter of weeks, peace talks began in Addis Ababa.

In early January, I had the privilege of speaking with Laku Bil, a South Sudanese political activist and refugee. Bil was born in South Sudan, and fled to Khartoum during the civil war. He was educated in the north, and became a journalist for opposition newspapers, where he earned a reputation for his fierce activism for human rights. After numerous threats, detainments, and the assassination of his close friend and colleague, Bil fled Sudan and sought refuge in Canada in 2004.

In discussing the current escalation in South Sudan, Bil emphasized that the situation is far from being a simple ethnic conflict, and requires a more analytical evaluation. However, because the media faces many challenges in effective reporting on the conflict, accurate information (necessary for such an evaluation) is hard to come by. South Sudanese journalists continue to face heavy government censorship and work at great personal risk, while Western journalists, parachuted into the conflict zone, often lack the contextual understanding needed for accurate reporting. To make things worse, politicians often exploit the lack of press freedom in order to portray the conflict in ways that serve their interests. Ultimately, according to Bil, “the story is simplified, with great consequences for the local population.”

The current crisis arose out of a deeply rooted power struggle within the SPLM. The struggle worsened between President Kiir and former Vice President Machar, particularly after Kiir dismissed Machar, along with other senior political leaders, in July 2013. The dismissal destabilized the party and undermined its accountability. Kiir and Machar are from the two largest ethnic groups in South Sudan, Dinka and Nuer respectively, and have significant support from these groups. Each have accused the other of inciting ethnic conflict. According to Bil, this “politicization of ethnicity can have profoundly serious consequences,” and is particularly problematic because, before this crisis (and post-independence), “the common South Sudanese suffered most not from ethnic tensions, but from poverty, disease, and lack of education.” The politicians’ framing of the conflict along ethnic lines can deepen divides, infuse the crisis with a sense of inevitability, and (like most violent conflicts) shift attention away from the problems that the South Sudanese commonly face.

Bil emphasized that the political struggle must be understood against the backdrop of the process of state building. Although there is a progressive constitution in place, it is profoundly difficult to implement its ideals in a state that lacks the pre-conditions to democracy: namely, respect for the rule of law, a genuine and transparent judicial system, and an independent press and civil society. According to Bil, the SPLM leadership failed to recognize that “the ideology used to unite South Sudanese against the common adversary of the north is no longer viable post-independence.” Having gained their knowledge and expertise primarily on the battleground, “many South Sudanese leaders lack the frame of reference necessary to establish a strong basis for a civil society.” In order to be effective, the “SPLM must undergo a process of democratization, and transform from a revolutionary movement into a civil political force.”

While it is important to accurately identify the political struggle as the root of this crisis, the reality of ethnic violence cannot be side- lined. Hilde Johnson, the head of the United Nations mission in South Sudan, reported that there is “evidence of ethnic [violence] or targeting of South Sudanese citizens on ethnic grounds,” mainly between Dinka and Nuer. By mid-January, the UN estimated that 468,000 people had fled their homes, and up to 10,000 people were feared to have been killed.

International support is necessary to prevent South Sudan from becoming yet another breach of the global promise to “never again” idly stand by in the face of mass atrocity. However, the most critical solutions must arise domestically. According to Bil, while eth- nic tensions have clearly become the focus of both the media and politicians, “South Sudanese leaders must internalize a paradigm shift towards uniting their citizens against the common challenges found in poverty, disease, and lack of education.” Most importantly, as Nelson Mandela so eloquently articulated: “Hating clouds the mind. It gets in the way of strategy. Leaders cannot afford to hate.” It is essential that SPLM leaders prevent their political differences from disintegrating into ethnic rivalries.

An East African proverb says, “When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.” South Sudanese are once again the grass beneath the feet of belligerent leaders. South Sudan’s independence was not the final destination in the nation’s walk to freedom. The sooner political leaders internalize their new mission, the sooner the grass across South Sudan will be able to grow into the democratic state its constitution envisions.