Southern Sudanese House of Nationalities: Operational and Procedural Issues

---

By Kwesi Kwaa Prah
Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society - Cape Town

Commissioned Paper Prepared for the Southern Sudanese House of Nationalities Conference. Hotel Beau Lac, Neuchâtel/Neuenburg, Switzerland. 14 – 16 April 2005.

What do we envisage to be the Terms of Reference, Operational and Procedural Guidelines for the projected House of Nationalities? A number of issues spring to mind under these considerations. These issues relate to questions of accreditation, competence, institutional stratification, routine and frequency of meetings, the routine of rotation of meeting places, the place and role of women and youth, internal electoral procedures and last, but not least, financial considerations.

With regard to all these considerations two factors or guiding principles are relevant. These are the principle of democracy, and the issue of demographics and demographic balances. Whatever we do the basis of legitimacy should be grounded on firm principles of democracy and democratic institutionalization. Closely allied to this, is the issue of population size of the constituencies which we want to represent. If these two principles are used indiscriminatively all cultural and national diversity can be represented according to their population strength. It is the only way to ensure that there is fairness in the distribution of power and authority within the forum. In the Background Paper we ask that,

Accreditation: How are the representatives of the nationalities to be selected?

Different nationalities may have different procedures. Who shall intervene in case of misuse or conflict of representation within one community? Is the list of about 90 communities an appropriate basis to start with? Since a tribal leaders’ forum is a non-partisan institution, should leaders involved in active party-politics have to be excluded?

The only safe and politically responsible way of dealing with these issues is that all nationalities should be represented but that the strength of their representation, i.e. the number of their representatives should be a reflection of their population size. The constituency which votes these representatives should be mutually exclusive, in other words, members of the constituency cannot vote twice. One must not be able to vote as, for example, a Bari and at the same time a Mondari. Once the voters rolls have been composed each person must be identifiable to one nationality of his/her own choice and vote within the constituency of that nationality. The list of about 90 communities is a good point of departure, but it needs to be revisited and scrutinized to ensure that it is comprehensive and does not allow any overlaps. It is my view that it is impractical to exclude party-politics from the nationality leader’s forum (note that I do not say tribal leaders’ forum, I say nationality leaders’ forum). If it is a forum for chiefs, then it might be possible to exclude party-politics.

The Background Paper also says that,

The forum was tentatively given the name of House of Nationalities, not House of Chiefs. The difference may seem minor, but some South Sudanese thought it was politically important to always remind its members that they represent the communities, and not the chiefs. This approach may also open the way for a more democratic selection of those who represent their nationality in the House. The name does not matter, and some South Sudanese call the forum already al-Mazalla al-kawmiya.

The above observation and the rationale on which it is based is very sound. It defines the forum as a platform for dealing with nationality issues and how they impinge on the social lives of people and communities and not necessarily a forum for Chiefs. If Chiefs seek representation on the forum they may possibly have to compete openly with all-comers. On the other hand, if it is meant to be a House of Chiefs, in the literal sense, then it must be that.

Our Background Paper also, with respect to Competence states that,

Competence: a tribal leaders forum is expected to have mainly a consultative competence. Are there areas where a binding competence should be considered, beyond purely internal matters? Some issues of customary law?

The relevance of customary law should be acknowledged as a system of social control and social sanctions regulating social behaviour in culturally fairly homogenous tradition-bound communities. Most social behaviour is governed, in the minds of members of the communities by practices within the jurisdictional area of customary law and customary usage. The question we have to answer is that under whose specific authority should the dispensation of customary law be attributed? If it is the Chief or Headman or Lineage Head or Clan Head, can this person also be at the same time a representative of the House of Nationalities? This issue needs to be sorted out. There is need also for customary law to transit its institutional base in orality to literacy; i.e. customary law has to be written and codified so that it acquires statutory character and is not subject to idiosyncratic adjudication. Transparency in judgment and justice must not only be done, but must also been seen to be done, in clear and invariable ways.

With regards to the point that,

If there are different layers of tribal leaders’ forums, one on the national level of the South Sudan, another one on the level of the ten states (and possibly even on the local), what will be the relation between them?

There would appear to be wisdom in the consideration of different layers of tribal leaders’ forums. This issue would need to be given thorough consideration, especially in as far as matters of competence, relevance and avoidance of conflict in competence areas are concerned. Generally, issues of competence should define the different layers, and the hierarchy in the layers should be premised upon superiority of layers, as you move up the stratificational ladder.

With regard to frequency of meetings,

Frequency of meetings: the more meetings are taking place, the bigger the risk that the members of the forum loose contact with their own community, and that they fail to assume their proper role at home. The traditional leaders conference suggested to have a meeting once a year at the level of the South Sudan as a whole, and twice a year at state level, with a duration of about 2-3 weeks each. Is that a realistic proposal?

It would seem that this reading of the situation and the proposal on the table is a realistic one. But arguably some flexibility in the initial stages would be wise. A firmer decision on the issue should be made after about six months of the life of the House of Nationalities.

The question, in the Background Paper, of,

Rotation of places for meetings: whether the meeting place of the tribal leaders’ forum within the states of the South Sudan should rotate is an open question. As far as the annual meeting is concerned one can assume that a rotation among the different states would be politically important. The hosting community would also assume the chairmanship (like the European Council today).

This issue, it would appear, would be dependent on the availability of infrastructure, support services and costs. Obviously, the greater the rotation the better the feeling of ownership by all communities concerned. But in order to realize this, important issues of resource allocation, infrastructure and costs will have to be considered. These considerations would obviously have to be balanced against the benefits of rotation.

The Background Paper also has this to say with regard to Women and Youth,

Role and place of the women and the youth: how can a tribal leaders forum operate as an avenue for an institutionalized dialogue between the traditional leaders on the one hand, and the women and youth on the other and?

This is a very important dimension of this work of the leaders’ forum. The institutionalization of dialogue between traditional leaders and youth and women will help in the highlighting of women and youth matters which are so important in the social life of communities. It will help also to decentralize and disaggregate issues which should not automatically be unilaterally handed to traditional leadership. It will provide a legitimate voice to these two constituencies in matters where divergent interest may compete for expression, discussion, and policy decision-making and implementation.

With regard to, (Background Paper)

Internal procedures of the forum: how is the chairman being selected? Should there be a “committee” that organises and runs the meetings? Meetings of the forum would be chaired by its members, not by politicians.

It is difficult to firmly, at this point, state how the Chairperson (not Chairman, it could be a woman) should be selected. Clear guidelines have to be formulated for this. And in principle, the Chair should be elected, or selected and rotated.

The question of Finance is an important matter on which rests most of the considerations we have so far made. In the Background document it is stated that,

Financing: after an initial period, the forum of the tribal leaders has to be financed by the South Sudan itself, without international support. On state level, the costs for two annual meetings should not be prohibitive, since there are only 10-20 nationalities to be represented. On the level of the South, the hosting nationality would have to bear quite some costs, but due to the rotation of places that would happen only once in a few decades.

Careful consideration will have to be given this matter. We have to realize that this institution is an important one for the consolidation of democratic practice and processes in the South Sudan. It is therefore in the interest of all who want to see the protection and consolidation of the cultural and social lives of the African communities in the Sudan to learn to put their money where their mouth is, and provide the finances necessary for the successful operation of this institution. Thank you.