The Debate on the House of Nationalities
Addressing the
fears of the skeptics
By Dr. Charles Saki Bakheit
Introduction
Neuchâtel, April 16, 2005
History abounds with examples where good ideas often have
to overcome many resistances before they finally see the light
of day. To a certain extent, the concept of a formal forum
for traditional leaders for Southern Sudan embarked on a similar
journey since the seeds of the idea was planted in the Aberdare
Country Club in the November of 2000. In one respect, it is
important that the idea should be thoroughly scrutinized,
understood, and the skeptics’ concerns fully addressed,
if the idea is to become accepted, and if its implementation
is to succeed. It is only when an idea comes under intense
camera, turned upside down, inside out, that its weakness
as well as its hidden values are unmasked. In this respect,
the roles of the critics and the skeptics should be appreciated
in the ongoing debate.
The fears and objections to HoN
In the last two days we have been treated to very rich and
informative talks, and passionate discussions on the concept
of modern government and traditional structures, and how all
these can be married in some way to suit the case of Southern
Sudan. We have been feted on the role of traditional structures
in other African countries, discussed how this can be applied
to Southern Sudan. We have also addressed such issues as who
indeed constitute traditional leaders, and touched the operational
aspect of a forum for traditional leaders. Even the name has
been put under the camera. In fact these excellent papers
and the subsequent discussions have in one way or the other
addressed most of the fears and concerns of many skeptics,
to the extent that my task here has been made a lot easier.
I am therefore going to run the risk of repeating much of
what has already been said, in a brief and crisp way. The
intention here is to summarize as much of the material as
possible into one single document. The list of concerns is
by no mean exhaustive, and participants are welcome to add
more to it. The aim here is not to demonize any particular
groups or persons, but rather to get focused on specific and
genuine areas of doubts.
It is most encouraging to learn that, as a result of several
workshops, the southern women and youth have emerged as the
avant-guard groups to embrace the concept of the HoN. They
both perceive this forum as one of change and one that will
offer them the opportunity to engage their traditional leaders
in constructive and fruitful dialogue in a way never done
before. This is a positive and very significant development
for the HoN, because women in the society provide powerful
driving force for societal change, while the youth will be
inheriting the future leadership of the nation state. For
even greater significance is what we have heard from the Deputy
Chairman of the SPLM, the day before yesterday, that the movement
has actually accepted the idea of a forum for the traditional
leaders when the Chairman endorsed the recommendations made
during the meeting of traditional leaders when they gathered
recently in Newsite. Among the recommendations was one that
specifically asked for such a forum. It is most significant
in that, as the SPLM is the main player in the shaping of
the next GOSS and its constitution, its endorsement is vital
to the idea, To the movement I say that now that since the
talk is almost over, we would like to see it walk the walk.
There are still the problems of working on the details of
interfacing such a forum with the modern structures of the
state and operational issues, and some fine-tuning, but I
believe, these can be achieved if we put our minds to them,
without prejudice. Nonetheless, there are still skeptics,
both in and outside the movement, whose concerns and fears
need to be adequately addressed if the idea is to move a step
towards implementation. It is therefore imperative that we
address some of their concerns, and allay their fears. We
now examine some of these concerns below.
1. The HoN is a threat to the movement and a cover-up
for the opposition against the movement
This is a fear that may be harboured by some members of the
movement. They believe it is dangerous to enhance the self-consciousness
of ethnic communities, which proved disastrous to southern
unity in the past. They are concerned that some unhappy members
in the movement may easily use such a forum to weaken it from
within. They also fear it could be used by those in the opposition
to undermine it
To all these, we can only appeal to those holding these views
to show political maturity and not see conspiracy beneath
every stone. The movement has already been able to convene
conferences of traditional leaders, and have witnessed their
tremendous wisdom, has heard from the traditional leaders
themselves as recorded in their resolutions in their Kamuto
declaration, and has witnessed their abilities in resolving
conflicts between communities. Needless to say, some of these
conflicts were caused by the politicians who were actually
unable to resolve them. Things can only get better, and such
forums can become more productive if they get constitutional
legality and are regulated, and empowered with well-defined
functions. The bigger risk and danger will be if this until
now non-partisan institution is left unattended, unharnessed,
and taken advantage of by some ill-intentioned groups.
2. The HoN is an obstacle to the building of a modern
state
Some critics argue that the role of traditional leaders should
not be brought together at either the state or the national
level where they will be in direct competition with the GOSS,
which may interfere with the national effort to develop and
build a modern state. They argue that traditional leaders’
role is irrelevant to the building of the modern state, and
should be confined to their immediate communities, and whenever
necessary to communities in conflict.
The process of modernization of the south cannot be carried
out without the help of the traditional leaders. They will
have to be brought on board and to play constructive roles
in the process. We must bear in mind that the south is predominantly
a rural community, with more than 80% of the population living
in rural areas administered by these traditional leaders.
The most effective way to get messages through to the grassroots
is often through their traditional leaders, as exemplified
by the recent gathering of traditional leaders at the Newsite,
to be briefed about the CPA. In this respect, the forum actually
will become a very powerful agent of development and modernization,
unless of course if modernization is only for the less than
20% urban dwellers. Besides, should a conflict develop between
traditional community leaders and the modern elite, the forum
provides a convenient platform to address and defuse it. As
King Adongo eloquently put it yesterday: If areas are in conflict,
we can,t talk of development.
3. The HoN can only be looked at once the national
(Southern) identity is built
It is also argued that the HoN will not help build a national
identity. It will instead only create tribal/local mosaic
of an identity. Moreover, small ethnic communities would be
over-represented, and would be more interested in their narrow
interest rather than that of the totality of the communities
in the South.
Contrary to what the critics fear, the HoN may actually
provide the opportunity to portray and blend the rich cultural
diversity of the South, and is therefore going to be an important
source of building a true southern Sudanese identity. The
foundation of the identity of a people rests on their cultures
and traditions, and it draws its texture and strength from
them. No genuine southern identity can be built without the
involvement of the traditional leaders, who are more or less
the custodians of the cultures and traditions of the sixty
plus ethnic communities in the south, big or small. Moreover,
the worthiness of a culture or tradition should not be determined
by the size of the ethnic group it comes from.
4. The HoN is a counter power with no democratic
legitimacy
It is argued that the traditional leaders are not elected
democratically, are often authoritarian, and are there by
accident of birth. Hence, they have no legitimacy and their
role should not be strengthened. Besides, the argument continuous,
they will monopolize power and prevent modern forces from
expanding and penetrating their communities. Moreover, there
is no need to spend our limited resources on an irrelevant
project like the HoN. Such resources would be best used to
solve more urgent problems such as those of environment and
ecology, for instance.
My response to that is the HoN will have well defined and
specific roles to play that will be enshrined in the constitution
of the state. The roles, which will be confined to that of
an advisory function can be restricted to areas where these
leaders have knowledge and legitimacy, on issues of land,
customary law, settlement of conflicts between communities
and the judiciary, all to be spelled out in the constitution.
Within this context, it is hard to see traditional leaders
high-jacking the powers of nationally elected representatives
and prevent modern forces from expanding.
The resources for the HoN will be well worth it, given the
benefits that the forum will provide. At afraction of the
price, they will be able to prevent conflicts that may cost
the country millions and many innocent lives. Moreover, the
amount will be minuscule compared to all the benefits the
elected members will be voting for themselves. As these traditional
leaders will already be awing salaried government employees
anyway, the state may need only pay them according to the
number of sitting sessions or committee work they may have
participated in, plus administrative overheads and other relevant
allowances that will not break the nations coffers.
As regards their sometime authoritarian behavior, the forum
can be used to check any such tendencies, make them more informed
and enlightened.
5. The HoN will cause tribal tensions
It is argued that, since the HoN will raise tribal consciousness,
it will encourage ethnic competition and rivalry. Moreover,
it is not possible to grant equal treatment to all 60 plus
ethnic communities, since the size of the population of the
bigger communities is at least 20 times that of some of the
smaller ones. The HoN will tend to favour the smaller ethnic
groups, and should be dabbed the “House of Minorities”.
All cultures and communities deserve the same respect, and
need the same protection. Besides some of these ethnic communities
have sections that are recognized as distinct that would be
represented as separate ethnic groups in their own right.
This would give some of these big communities adequate representation.
Furthermore, we must not forget that the HoN will be operating
on a consensus basis, where the smaller communities can play
important role of maintaining some balance.
With respect to competition, a healthy competition, under
controlled environment, can be good for progress, self and
community development.
We must remember that one of the injustices we have been fighting
against is that of marginalization. Hence we should not also
not be instrumental in passing the injustice of marginalization
to the traditional leaders or marginalize our own cultures.
There are parallels between this form of representation and
the representation of nations in the UN, or the representation
of states in the senate where population size do not count,
but without the powers these representatives have. The HoN
aims at having ethnic communities treated as equals, irrespective
of their population sizes and at uniting all the ethnic communities.
The HoN will thus provide the communities with the forum to
resolve any misunderstanding that may lead to tensions among
them. Some of the most stable states in Africa do have such
forums, while those states that have neglected to involve
the traditional leaders of their different ethnic communities
have had very bloody history of ethnic cleansing and ethnic
tensions, instability and under-development.
6. Democratically elected representatives
to parliament should suffice in representing the interests
of all groups in their constituencies
The HoN encourages double representation. What
is it that, say, Belanda tribe should have which can only
be guaranteed by direct representation in the HoN that a democratically
elected member of parliament will not guarantee? Why should
the basis representation in the HoN not be on groups sharing
common cultures and traditions instead of on pure tribal labeling?
In response one can say that, the duties of a member of parliament
covers a wide area, and the member may not be that well versed
in customary law or, may have just a pedestrian knowledge
of the cultures and traditions of the ethnic groups in his/her
constituency. Moreover, certain constituencies such as the
one I come from, may have several ethnic segments with distinct
languages, cultures and traditions, which the representative
cannot claim to know that well.
Furthermore, representatives in parliament are often very
much occupied with party and national politics, and their
visits to their constituencies are often one days wonders.
The traditional leaders are often the first line of authority,
and it is they who can be most effective in transforming their
societies.
7. Our various cultures and traditions
in the south are often not in conformity with the rules of
modern democratic practices and other norms of good governance.
It is argued that our various cultures and traditions are
only rich and functional within the borders of the respective
ethnic communities. They lack universal appeal, and unless
they are tested and proven to be in conformity with the requirements
of modern society, they are not worth retaining.
My response to this argument is simple. Unless these cultures
and traditions are given the chance of being tested there
is no way we are ever going to know if they can stand the
test of time or have universal appeal. Moreover, most of our
communities have always operated by consensus, a solid democratic
principle. Hence to claim that our cultures and traditions
are not rooted in democratic values is not absolutely true.
True that there are some customs and traditions that are no
longer compatible with the times. It is precisely for this
reason that the HoN can be of value, to be able to root out
such anachronistic practices, while at the same time to blend
the new with the old in a harmonious manner. Often laws that
are passed to banish traditions that are incompatible with
modern life, without the support of the traditional leaders
become hard to implement. If the traditional leaders are involved
from the start in devising these laws, their successes would
more guaranteed.
Last but not least, the idea of dismissing our cultures and
traditions wholesale, is in itself very dangerous and disturbing.
A people without culture are a lost people.
I end here with a quote from the HoN booklet, by Dr. Conradin
Perner, which says “… the real assets of the Sudan
are neither found in petrol-fields nor watercourses, but in
its extraordinary cultural diversity”. If we fail to
capitalize on these assets, then we will lose everything.
