South Sudan News Agency

By PaanLuel Wel (Washington DC, USA)

John Adams:  “Remember, democracy never lasts long.  It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.  There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

November 1, 2010 (SSNA) -- The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the subsequent demised of the Soviet Union marked the height of democratic triumphalism in the history of modern time. Though principles underpinning democratic government have been around since the time of the ancient Greeks, it was only the emergence of the modern day nation state system of government that democracy finally took roots and flourished. Currently, nearly three quarter of the world nation states profess some forms of democratic government ranging from the Western liberal democracy to the semi-quasi democratic ones in the developing countries. Not only that, even authoritarian’s countries such as China or Iran regard themselves as adherents of democratic government.

Democracy has many critics, both in the past as well as today. While it proponents such as Abraham Lincoln see, in democracy, a government of the people by the people and for the people, critics in the like of Thomas Jefferson only perceive democracy as a tyranny of the majority—nothing more than an angry mob, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. This view is also reflected in the words of Sir Winston Churchill who once quipped that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest.

Even in the ancient Greece, the cradle of democracy, or the mighty Roman Empire where the concept of republicanism was born, many acclaimed philosophers —Plato, Niccolo Machiavelli or Thomas Hobbes were very critical of the many inherent flaws within the democratic system of governance. This is mainly because the fundamental principles of democracy—unlimited liberty and freedom for all—often make democracy prone to degenerate into anarchy and lawlessness which is detrimental to the very existence of the entire society.

In spite of the success and popularity of democratic system of government around the world in our modern time, democracy is  still  susceptible to the manipulation of unruly politicians and political leaders who are ill-bent to use democracy as a cover to create disorder and chaos in the society. It is certainly the case for those with hidden agenda,  ruthless pursuit of power and wealth,  which often time run contrary to the tenets of the democratic government. According to the ancient Greek philosopher, Plato, the very success of democracy—the celebration of unchecked freedom —spell the death of democracy itself. Factions baying for power would arise within the democratic government. And because these factions only see democracy as a tool to be used to ascend into power, their squabbling and abuse of democratic principles create chaos and disorder in the system.

The abuse of democracy is exacerbated by the fact that the core principles of democracy are susceptible to the influence of rogue elements. Consequently, the country becomes ungovernable due to the unruly behaviors of the various power-hungry politicians jostling for power. Eventually, the citizens charge with maintain democracy through electoral process began to lose control of the country as wealth and factional fighting become the determinants of the public lives. Voters apathy set in and the system become dysfunctional.

Democracy eventually degenerate into anarchy and lawlessness as unscrupulous political leaders take charge of the country and start purging the voice of dissent from within. Therefore the opponents of democratic system of governance such as the Chinese Communist party oppose democracy because the principle of unrestrained freedom and liberty breed chaos and anarchy which ultimate undermine and short-circuit smooth economic growth in the long run.

Whereas Plato disparaged democracy for its susceptibility to chaos and disorder, Niccolo Machiavelli, on the other hand, criticized democracy for its weaknesses as a system to gaining and maintaining power. In the Prince,  Machiavelli went out to explain how a prince can acquire, control and maximize his power over rivals. Democracy, on the other hand, is the rule of the majority. Though a prince can utilize democracy as a mean to gain power, it becomes a source of anarchy and lawlessness once the prince is in power.

Since politics, in Machiavelli view, is just but the means by which prince impose his will on the people, the liberty and freedom prized in democratic government would be an encumbrance to the acquisition and maintenance of power by the prince.  If anything, democracy would plant the seed of instability and discord. This is the philosophy mostly adopted by the authoritarian regimes across Africa. Little wonder that President Salva Kiir of Southern Sudan was reportedly studying The Prince by Machiavelli.

Moreover, the fact that Machiavelli overarching concern was the attainment of order and lawfulness in regard to safety make democracy a lesser choice for his project of governance. But that does not mean he was totally against some nuance form of democracy. His championing of a combination of the principles of the principality, aristocracy, and democracy in his other great work, The Discourse, demonstrated that he was not a sworn enemy of democracy.

In fact, his opposition to democracy can be gleaned from the fact that he take human to be more prone to evil than to good and therefore cannot be trusted in politics. His view of human as being self-centered animals stemmed from the fact that he was living in an era of warfare among various principalities in the Italian peninsula. Hence, the prince preservation of his power, and by extension the principality, was paramount in as much as it create fundamental elements of safety, order and lawfulness. Like the political philosophy of Louis XIV of France—I am the state, Machiavellianism has the leader as the state and the state’s laws are his precepts.

In the footstep of Machiavelli, the English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, voiced his opposition to democracy on the ground that democracy permit reckless freedom that tend to undermine the preservation of law and order in the community. Hobbes advocated for an enlightened authoritarian government with absolute powers that would be able to exert itself on all in order to bring about peace by punishing law breakers. Though democracy was never a license to break laws in his views, its unlimited foray of liberties eventually turns out to be the precursor of unlawfulness and chaos. This would turn society to the state of nature where it was a war of all against all.

In The Leviathan, Hobbes argues that because human fear death and desire peace of mind free from daily anxiety, there is a need to seek self preservation by means of social contract. In order to realize that, Hobbes contends, everyone should give up all freedom and rights, those intrinsic components of democracy, to an absolute sovereignty, or an authoritarian government.  In return for giving up their individual rights and freedom, people will be assured of their safety by getting rid of the security problems since the central authority would guarantee their collective security. Therefore, in the opinion of Hobbes, the fundamental principles of democracy—personal liberty and unrestrained expression for rights and freedom—are the source of anarchy in the society.

Hobbes assertions can only be appreciated by understanding his primary assumption. He believes that in the state of nature, everyone was entitled to everything he could land his hand on. In the absence of an authoritative government that is powerful enough to enforce social contract between individuals, justice, law and order would be an illusion since there is no inherent justice in nature that people can refer to and respect. Justice, wrong and good, is all product of the social contract which is only valid as long as it is enforced by a powerful sovereignty.

Thus, according to Hobbes, democracy is but detrimental to the preservation of peace in the society because it breeds discord and take man back to the rule of the jungle where man recently escaped from by seeking sanctuary in absolute government that can enforced social contract rules. To the ears of the Chinese rulers or the Russian oligarch, this is a sweet music that cannot be far from the truth of their world perspective.

In developing countries across Africa  where the competition amongst political parties to win power  could be  severe, political environment is highly volatile and undemocratic.  Thus, democracy becomes a double edge sword in developing  world where there  are no strong rules of law, democratic institutions, and civil societies. Unsurprisingly,  Electoral process has been turned into a  zero-sum game  tribal warfare  where politicians substitute parties for tribes. Regrettably, an otherwise healthy partisan competition is turn into something that is reminiscent of the old tribal  wars of the past. These supremacy tribal battles have made electioneering  years  synonymous with the traditional warring seasons  among tribes. It is so ingrained in people’s minds that whenever election year approaches, people are naturally prepared for the worse.

The longstanding hate and mistrust among ethnic groups,  Southern  Sudan for example, make democracy a recipe for conflict rather than a solace and refuge for the tormented. This abuse of democratic system has resulted in contested elections that precipitate violence and civil unrest during the last year general election. Instead of promoting peace and development  in the developing world,  democracy  fuels ethnic and tribal divisions since it legitimizes differences as separate political groupings battle it out on tribal or religious grounds. Worse still, manipulative re-election politicking produces many policies that are not necessarily in the interests of the State or the people these politicians represent or serve. Rather, the policies, if any, are all machiavellistic: tailored toward acquisition and maintenance of power by hooks and crooks. Sacrosanct democratic principles such as the universal suffrage end up being abused than served.

So if democracy was so much a demon not long ago, you might be wondering, how did it become so indispensable in our time? Well, many factors like the Reformation that weaken papal's powers on Europe, the explosion of scientific enlightenment, and technological advancement propelled the ascension of democracy. Furthermore, many other philosophers, John Locke for example, unlike Plato, Machiavelli or Hobbes, were great advocates of democratic system of government. The American Revolution, the French Revolution and the American Constitution were immensely influenced by the writing of John Locke, among others. Locke supported democracy because according to him it is the only form of government where individual rights and freedom can be exercised and respected.

Democracy, dissimilarly to other forms of government, prides itself on the fact that the governed control the government. Therefore, the actions of the government are aimed at the fulfillment of the desires and aspirations of the governed majority. Hence, Locke reckons that the political authority and the justification for its existence rest on the voluntary consent of the subjects under it. Thus, the legitimacy of the government is based on this social contract between the governed and the governors, electable by the majority to serve their interests. Because Locke holds the view that there is justice in the state of nature, unlike Hobbes, he reasons that humans, being moral agents, can agree, though social contract, to the formation of a central government that can advance the protection and preservation of their natural rights. And because such government is a product of a voluntary consent of people whose natural rights would be protected, it is therefore justified and a legitimate government. People would be submitting to it because of the benefits accrue unto them but not out of coercion or enslavement.

However, there is a limit to which the submission must go. For instance, a government that has failed in its duties to discharge justice and good governance as envision by the people would stand dissolves. People have no any more legitimate obligation to obey it since it has failed them by breaching the tenets of social contract. Therefore, people would be obligated to not only withhold their tacit consent but also to advocate for a formation of an altogether different democratic government that would obey and serve them.

Proponents of democracy maintain that because a democratic system of government can renew itself by discarding bad leaders that do not serve the interest of the people, it is much superior to other forms of government advocated by Plato, Hobbes and Machiavelli. Even though democracy is prone to abuse by unscrupulous politicians as it is apparently now in many part of the world political theaters where election are either sham or bitterly disputed, the people themselves know what is best for them in that, through election, they can still control who get into the office and for what purpose.

Nevertheless, the fatal flaws inherent in a democracy does not mean that we are going to witness the end of it any time soon. It is very hard, in a fully democratic societies, for a leader to overlook, once in office, the campaign promises he made in pursuit of his other hidden agendas. The mechanism of impeachment ensures that getting into the office is not a license to overturn the rule of law. Though some countries have been overran by groups that first professed democratic principles on campaign trail and later turn out to be an authoritarian’s body, it is highly unlikely to be the case in countries with deep-rooted democratic institutions.

Whereas others might see the very successes of democracy as its eventual cause of its self-destruction, it is also true to argue that the success of democracy create a society where only democratic principles are the cultural norms expected of all political players. It is for this reason that democracy is the main system of government in this 21st century.

Mr PaanLuel Wel, a concerned Sudanese student studying in the United States, can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or through his blog:  http://paanluel2011.blogspot.com

By Butrus Ajak, Australia

“Freedom means you are unobstructed in living your life as you choose. Anything less is a form of slavery” Wayne Dyer.

October 30, 2010 (SSNA) -- To sons and daughters of South Sudan, the morning of 10^th January, 2011 will be like the day Barack Obama was declared the 44^th President of the most powerful nation on the Earth, USA. All black whether in USA or outside US couldn’t sleep that day.  The 10^th January, 2011 will be a day to keep sacrosanct and be remembered by Southerners and other marginalized people in the Sudan. Salva Kiir Mayardit, the 1^st Vice president of the Sudan Republic and the President of South government and his Vice President Dr. Riek Macher Teny names will be remembered in thousands of decades to come. Their names will be written in the history books as clique of nationalists who spearheaded and guided the masses of South Sudan to eternal freedom at its final phase. Their decisive decision now on how to deal with the canny and fly-by-night regime in Khartoum will determine the fate of thousands sons and daughters of South Sudan who are watching and waiting eagerly.

Most of the Southerners are overzealous to see freedom of the South obtained. Currently and most worryingly enough, there has been hearsay on the media about SPLM backing down on it stance to doing referendum as stipulated in the CPA. If this turns out to be true, then it is a deadly mistake by SPLA/SPLM top leadership. Good five years have just vanished of the list and nothing substantial about CPA requirements was done, when NCP sees South freedom is at the offing, they have come up with several lame excuses just to buy time so as the set time of the CPA application expires. This shouldn’t be allowed to chance.

As Sudan has been at War with its self, Southerners bore colossal consequences. South Sudan rate of illiteracy is as high as compare to its counterpart Northern Sudan. North allows their sons and daughters to go school and we in the South were denied this chance by NCP, and this was by not providing Education centers. South Sudan was made a vanguard of Warfare. South sons and daughters missed the opportunity of being free students, who would decide to become politicians, lecturers, managers, teachers, engineers, medical doctors, you name it. North is held to account for an incessant instability of the South which resulted in high illiteracy of the region.

South daughters and sons were seen and considered primitive by Jallaba and it was because, they were denied chances to proof their talents to the outside World. Though few were educated, big number didn’t make it. However, the opposite was seen when our boys and girls were sent to schools in our neighboring Countries namely Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia and many more. They made names in these Countries. And for those who ventured to the Western World, our boys and girls are doing tremendous job. In the education arena, White community is amazed by our children performances. In the fashion domain we have, Alek Wek of UK and USA, Ajah Deng of USA and Ajoh Majok of New Zealand. They made South Sudan a prominent nation in the waiting that will be producing beautiful and fashionable women of all time. In sport field, we have the most revered young South Sudanese men Luol Deng of NBA, Lopez Lomong the USA flag bearer of 2008 Beijing Olympic and Machar Yuot (popularly known as Macharia) of USA is another rising star in long distance running. In music industry, we have Emanuel Jal, the former child soldier musician. Our sons and daughter are of World standard only that they were deprived of opportunities by NCP to hound their careers.

In contrast to Anya 1 and Anya 2, Justice Abel Alier and his colleague Joseph Lagu, the Omdurman military graduate and the President of the High Executive Council of South Sudan, made a good attempt to liberate and free us and it wasn’t successful. Their movement was cheated and absorbed into Sudan Army by the same Jallaba. To do away with the then South aspiration, their army was scattered all over Sudan just to minimize their togetherness. It was technically done to nip danger of probably rebelling again in the bud. Wretchedly, my people were exposed to the same oppression until Kwanyin Bol famously known as (Mangook) RIP, Dr. John Garang Mabior the then SPlA/SPLM chairperson (RIP), William Nyuon Bany (RIP) the then Vice chairperson, Arok Thon Arok (RIP), Martin Majer Gai (RIP) and Salva Kiir Mayardit the incumbent chairperson of GOSS and many more sons and daughters of the South broke again the dead silent and staged the mutiny and took up arms to finally set us free. We owed them the greatest homage, though there existed loathsome upheaval in their movement, they are the architect of what is about to be possessed in less than 70 days. That moment is here now; it is just at the corner. It rests in the hands of the sole survivor of the architects, Salva Kiir Mayardit and his deputy Dr. Riek Machar. They need not be cheated again. There is a say that normally says: If somebody cheats you once, shame on him, if cheated twice, shame on you!!!! Anya, Nya one was cheated, SPLA/SPLM shouldn’t allow the story to repeat itself. Thus, there has to have unconditional no compromise on referendum date. It’s nonnegotiable whatsoever!!!

After then, South sons and daughters will be like any other children around the globe. Slit of illiteracy, stratification and bourgeoisies will get closed gradually. Our children will be sent to school with no hindrances, there will be no rich classes Vs poor classes. The aforementioned gentlemen who determined to change the face of the Sudan, and it happens, their names, living or decease will be written in the history of liberation of South Sudan as heroes and heroine who once a time brought freedom to the oppressed one. We must be free not because we claim freedom, but because we took up arms and scarifies our dear lives for it.

Butrus Ajak is an erstwhile Red-Army and a Swinburne University graduate who live in Australia. He is reachable at: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it   

By Daniel Abushery Daniel (USA)

“I cannot teach you violence, as I do not myself believe in it. I can only teach you not to bow your heads before any one even at the cost of your life”. Mahatma Gandhi

October 31, 2010 (SSNA) -- Without any doubt, South Sudan is now heading towards the end of a long tunnel, which its independence from Khartoum elites, just waiting for January 9th, 2011, and the southerners will excise their ultimate right of self determination in a referendum, don’t make any mistake, we are dealing with people who don’t value life, don’t keeps, and honored their promises, be alert, till the mission was accomplished. Therefore, the involvement of international observers was a wise and brilliant idea. Nevertheless, despite the cheap and shameful attempt of Egyptian government, trying to lour and   seduce our leaders to accept the postponement of this historical event, it was just one of many tactics from Khartoum regime, but the Egyptian acknowledged that; world is watching them. Therefore, they changed the plan they intended to approach our leaders with. Egypt wants transparency between south and north, just to assure that; war will not erupt again, the Egyptian delegation stressed. But, we said to pharaoh, nice trial, but over rule.

The matter of fact is that; the purpose of negotiation is to resolve the situations where; what you want conflicted with what someone else wants. The aim of win-win negotiation is to find a solution that is acceptable to both parties, and leaves all involved with feeling that; they’ve won – in some way – once the negotiation or deal has finished. Remember, we don’t want Abyei to become another Kashmir of Africa.

However, for SPLM to resolve its differences with al-Bashir party (NCP), and put an end of Abyei epidemic peacefully, we must make sure that; we prepare thoroughly, and follow win- win negotiation technique adequately:

Goals: what do we want to get out of the negotiation?, and what do we think the Khartoum wants?

Trades: What do the SPLM and its partner NCP have that both can trade? What do they all want? What are SPLM and NCP comfortable giving away?

Alternatives: if the two parties don’t reach agreement what alternatives do they have? Are these good or bad? How much does it matter if they do not reach agreement? Does failure to reach an agreement cut them out of any future opportunities? And what alternatives might NCP or SPLM have?

Relationships: what is the history of the relationship? Could or should this history impact the negotiation? Will there be any hidden issues that may influence the negotiation? How will the two parties handle these?

The consequences: what are the consequences for SPLM of winning or losing this negotiation? What are the consequences for NCP?

Power: who has what power in the relationship? Who controls resources? Who stands to lose the most if agreement isn’t reached?

Possible solutions: based on all of the considerations, what possible compromises might there be?

Evidently, many observers stated that SPLA/M cannot deal with the consequences and controversy   of the secession  of  South Sudan  in isolation of the other Southerners  political parties,  and civic organizations, south – south  reconciliatory   summit actually became hands on, and their obligations and duties to help is sine que.

Thus far, our   intention here is; to follow the right procedure, and make sure that; referendum was exercised in free, fair, and healthy environment, to avoid any emotional behavior, or hostile situation that may jeopardize the whole process, so, it should be conducted professionally, to meets the international standard.

In –conclusion, we must honor the fallen heroes, and myatres who lost their precious lives to liberate Ngok Dinka in particular, and south Sudanese people in general from York of northern elites, especially, those who were buried in Abyei area, as a reminder to the coming   generation and the whole world that; at last, we make it to the shore, again, if you can’t make it to the poll, please don’t registered your name.

Let’s hope for the best, and prepare for the worse. Long live South Sudan nation.

Shalom.

The author is a criminologist, and human rights activist, can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it