South Sudan’s political journey is not very different from what other nations have experienced after independence. Kenya’s post-colonial path under KANU showed what happens when a ruling group concentrates power and resources among its top members. SPLM followed a nearly identical path. In 2005, after the formation of the Unity Government, there was hope for stability. But in just six years, the leadership as a whole had already misused power and public funds. Yet the blame landed almost entirely on President Salva Kiir.
In response to mounting pressures after 75 corrupt officials was released, Kiir ordered all cabinet members to declare their assets. Only one, Awut Deng Achuil resigned. The rest ignored the directive. Their refusal wasn't just silence; they turned against Kiir, accusing him of giving in to international demands, saying Kiir listened mist to international community more than his comrades. Some questioned his loyalty to the group, asking, “Why betray us?” This response exposed how far internal loyalty had replaced any real commitment to public service. The list of 75 corrupt officials had been made public through a report linked to the internal organization, not an outside enemy.
It’s worth noting that Dr. Riek Machar had been entrusted with leading the Referendum Taskforce, a role that carried great responsibility. After independence, Kiir publicly thanked those involved, including Riek, while also admitting that certain people had acted improperly during the process. Still, Kiir chose not to punish or accuse them. He did not call out Riek, Pagan Amum, or any other senior SPLM member. That silence was strategic, possibly an effort to hold the political house together.
In 2012, a full list of officials accused of corruption surfaced. The timing created panic within SPLM’s top ranks. Riek, worried about what might follow, called a meeting in Kiir’s absence, while the president was in Tanzania. This move was controversial, not least because SPLM had not updated its rules since the party’s first convention in Chukudum. There was no clear structure for elections or decision-making, leaving the door wide open for internal power grabs.
By 2013, the pressure within SPLM had reached a boiling point. At a party convention, Riek and his group challenged Kiir and made sweeping accusations. Just minutes after the session broke down, violence erupted. The collapse wasn’t sudden. It was the result of years of unresolved tensions, weak internal rules, and people pushing personal agendas under the cover of party loyalty.
Other top SPLM figures were far from innocent. Pagan Amum, who held the position of Secretary-General and was deeply involved in the referendum process, had major sway over party policies and direction. His name, too, is part of the story of a leadership that lost its way. The same goes for Thomas Cirillo, who served as Deputy Chief of Logistics before turning against the state. Both men were once trusted insiders before becoming opponents.
This shows a clear pattern. It wasn’t one man who broke the system—it was a group that allowed personal interest to rise above national goals. Leaders who once stood together eventually turned on each other, but not before doing damage that would take years to undo. Those now pointing fingers were once part of the same broken chain.
Kiir has kept repeating a single message: “Yajamha, let’s take our country forward.” Whether people agree with him or not, that call reminds the country of a simple truth, no one builds a nation alone, and no one ruins it alone either. Fixing what went wrong requires facing the full picture, not just the parts that are easy to attack.
Last not least, real democracy, accountability, and transparency cannot be delivered through the efforts of one individual alone. In 2015, President Salva Kiir expressed and prepared his readiness to move the country toward elections. However, Dr. Riek Machar opposed the process and resorted to military action in 2013, disrupting the path Kiir had hoped to take. Holding elections under such conditions was no longer realistic. Had the plan moved forward, it might have allowed other patriotic leaders to step up through a peaceful vote and carry out reforms. The blame for the missed opportunity does not rest with Kiir, it lies with those who chose conflict over dialogue.
Salva Kiir will be remembered as revolutionary, freedom fighter and a leader who tried to guide the country through unfortunately and uncertain times with patience. Many will look back and wish he had remained in office longer to complete what he started. His approach, though not perfect, showed a level of stability that is hard to find. In the years ahead, many may come to see that replacing his kind of leadership will not be easy.
By Economist & Senior SPLM pollitical think tank Mr Mathiang Jalap Dongrin
No comments:
Post a Comment