Abuse of Intellectual Credentials in Promotion of Domination

The Jieng intellectuals must address the question of their patriotism. Are they committed to South Sudan and its national well-being, or are they committed to Jieng tribalism? The latter has already dragged the country onto a path of self-destruction, with the possible end result being the total breakup of the country, as in the case of Yugoslavia, the former Soviet Union and Sudan itself, which we broke away from in 2011. History tells us that identity politics is the surest way to destroy a country.

So, the Jieng intellectuals need to come out clean - their affinity to tribalism is something that they need to address. They must confront the demons of Jieng tribalism if they want to see a united and prosperous South Sudan. They need to look themselves in a well-polished mirror to exorcise the evil ideology of tribal hegemony out of themselves, which people like Abraham Awolich and Kuir Garang should consider doing too. This is because, if they reflect on their YouTube video titled; Abraham Awolich on Jieeng (Dinka) Domination of political and Economic Power -#1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM7zV3M)

they may realise this is a myopic way to view our country and indeed the world. Watching this video raises issues of transparency, impartiality and honesty, especially with the host at the outset invoking the statement, ‘This is a sort of an intellectualised debate’, essentially this vague phrasing indicates that he is a partial participant with no interest in having a genuine debate, or indeed in the subject itself, other than to query opinions relating to the topic of ethnic dominance in South Sudan. In a sense, he and the interviewee are supposedly wearing intellectual hats to give their conversation academic legitimacy, when in reality, it is a farce, as both him, ‘the host’ and the interviewee, are members of the Jieng tribe who are the current ruling tribe in South Sudan.

The arguments advanced in their video are highly misleading. Awolich argues that the problem of South Sudan is not Jieng domination, and that the idea that the Jieng are the dominant tribe is only due to perception. Awolich asserts that President Salva Kiir is the problem, but because he Salva Kiir is a Jieng, people are failing to differentiate him as president from the Jieng people.  Awolich then narrates the various strategies President Kiir employed to maintain power from 2005 to 2011 and thereafter as justification for his argument. He says, “There is no such plan by ethnic group called Dinka to dominate power. There is a plan to stock, after 2013 crisis when Kiir felt that his cards are running out, he resorted to ethnic stocking. Ethnic stocking is a political process in which you heighten identity politics so that you gain an advantage over your opponent, and so Kiir actually stocked based on ethnic identity to achieve his objective of lasting in power. However, in reality, and practice, decisions are made by him and people close to him. And these people are not necessarily from his ethnic community. For example, as I mentioned previously between 2005 and 2011 or before until the death of Paulino Matip. Pauino Matip was an influential leader, he used them to fight off his enemies.” 

Awolich here cleverly attempts to trivialise the problem of Jieng domination to ethnic stocking, giving the impression that President Kiir personally sparked tribalism in South Sudan to consolidate personal state power. However, the problem in South Sudan is past ethnic stocking, it is way bigger than that. The concept of ‘ethnic stocking’ for the first time was spotted in Jamaica’s newspaper, The Jamaica Observer as an editorial on 11th December 2012. The editor defined ethnic stocking as ‘The appointment to public office, including overseas posts, on the basis of ethnicity to ensure ethnic monopoly of political power.’ It is, ‘rewarding individuals with positions even though they (are) not qualified, either by professional training or by pertinent transferable work experience.’ 

Ethnic stocking was practised by Jieng in the Southern Sudan regional government from 1972 to 1981, in the former Sudan, well before the concept itself was coined by the Jamaica Observer. It was then, as now, widely known as tribalism. The quotation from General Joseph Lagu’s pamphlet titled ‘Decentralisation: A Necessity for Southern Provinces of the Sudan read out at the beginning by the host was itself written in protest to Jieng ethnic stocking as well as a proposal for corrective measures. Here is the quotation:

“When the selfish man has eaten he calls the hungry man greedy. This old adage is symbol of the situation now prevailing in the Southern Sudan. Political leadership with a strong tribal orientation having satisfied themselves that the only way to remain in power is to fan up tribal loyalties from their tribe, which they believe must now dominate because of sheer numbers are now turning around to point a finger at those who want to correct the situation as ‘power hungry’ politicians. Indeed, they are so infatuated with the desire to make their tribesmen politically predominant that emergence of any group to suggest corrective measures never appeared to them to be a possibility. It would also seem that they never gave any thought to the idea that they may be forcing a cat into a corner from where it would have no choice but to stretch and bite in self-defence.”

In this quote, it is abundantly clear that the Jieng had already progressed past the stage of ethnic stocking, and they were advancing towards dominance. This can be deduced from the statement; “Political leadership with a strong tribal orientation having satisfied themselves that the only way to remain in power is to fan up tribal loyalties from their tribe, which they believe must now dominate because of sheer numbers, are now turning around to point a finger at those who want to correct the situation as ‘power hungry’ politicians.” (Joseph Lagu, ‘Decentralisation: A Necessity for Southern Provinces of the Sudan’, pamphlet)

Now there is a clear difference between ethnic stocking and domination. Ethnic stocking on its own, is one of the three practices of dominating regimes. As domination involves stocking, control of the security sector, and consolidation of unity, within the dominant group, in this case the Jieng.

So, Awolich’s proposition and arguments conveniently ignores the realities of what was and is taking place in South Sudan. His arguments are just sheer distractions in the hope that they will be able to pull the wool over the eyes of viewers and the people of South Sudan. This is obviously beneficial for him personally, and his community. What he is doing is to try to hide the facts from the world and mislead the viewers of their video about the realities of Jieng dominance in South Sudan.

John McGarry in his article, ‘Disguising ethnic domination as accommodation or integration’, defines domination as, ‘Political elites organising their preferred ethnic community and disorganising their rivals.’ He further clarifies his definition by saying that domination is a strategy whereby elites of one community organise their followers against other communities by disorganising them intentionally through targeting, division, discrimination and violence. A key definition of domination is, the oppression of one or more human beings, by another human being or group of people. However, I find McGarry’s definition suitable in this context, because it takes into consideration intent, and how domination is practised. As it tells us two key things, one, who the organising dominators are, and two, which people voluntarily support the dominating system.

McGarry points out that one practice of dominating regimes, and those who support it, is the use of the legitimation narrative that depicts them, the dominators, positively, and the victims of the domination, negatively. Such narratives are used to consolidate support from outside parties, and in South Sudan’s case that would be international organisations, regional neighbours, other countries outside of the region, and the wider international community. These narratives also very importantly ensure a comfortable narrative for the dominant community in the diaspora too. This is exactly what Kuithiy TV is doing. Awolich and Kuir are trying to legitimise a narrative that the Jieng are not dominating South Sudan, and such a belief is just perception, however, that is false. The Jieng have been the dominant tribe, and oppressive force in South Sudan for several decades, and we must accept this. 

According to McGarry, as mentioned previously domination regimes are characterised by three practices. Firstly, filling government institutions with people from the dominant group, namely ethnic stocking. Secondly, the dominating group have control of the security sector, and thirdly, the maintenance of unity within the dominant group is prioritised, by applying ‘polarisation’ tactics. ‘Polarisation’ according to McGarry involves more than just the promotion of divisive narratives that separate the dominant from the dominated, but a range of cultural, symbolic, and economic discrimination that favours the dominant.

Further McGarry highlights that beyond these three spheres, an additional way to identify a dominating regime is that it may resort to fragmentation. That is the division of the dominated group into smaller groups through divide and rule.  They may practice co-option - the incorporation of members from the dominated communities into regime institutions, in ways that fall short of inclusion on the basis of equal citizenship. Co-opted individuals either occupy relatively powerless positions, or are only nominally representative of their communities. The regime may also seek to make the dominated materially dependent to facilitate their compliance, or it may leverage already existing relations of dependence. It may engage in demographic engineering, policies aimed at increasing the size of the dominant community through immigration and pronatalism, and at reducing the size of the dominated, through induced emigration or anti pronatalism. (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2024.1419727/full)

Pronatalism according to Luke Munn in his article, Pronatalism is the latest Silicon Valley trend. What is it – and why is it disturbing? published in The Conversation, is “any attitude or policy that is ‘pro-birth’, that encourages reproduction, that exalts the role of parenthood” (https://theconversation.com/pronatalism-is-the-latest-silicon-valley-trend-what-is-it-and-why-is-it-disturbing-231059)

Having made the difference between ethnic stocking and dominance, I move on to discuss the three crucial practices of dominant groups in relation to the Jieng domination in South Sudan. This is very important because it provides concrete evidence of Jieng domination in South Sudan. To start I will give a condensed history of the genesis of Jieng dominance in South Sudan.

In the early 1960s the Jieng begun to develop supremacist ideology, whose intent has been to build the Jieng tribe as the ruling class in a Southern Sudan and or in a united Sudan. Key to this ideology is the rejection of leadership of any person from any other ethnic group in Southern Sudan.

At the time, the leading political organisation representing Southern Sudan named Sudan African National Union (SANU) had just held elections and a non-Jieng Aggrey Jaden, was elected as the leader of SANU, who replaced Joseph Oduho in 1964, who together with William Deng became the Secretary General of the movement. Following the election of Aggrey Jaden, William Deng broke away and returned to Khartoum where he formed SANU Inside to promote himself as the leader of SANU.

William Deng then teamed up with Abel Alier, and others laying the seeds of Jieng supremacist ideology. Phrases such as, ‘We (Jieng) are born to rule.’ ‘Equatorians are not Southern Sudanese’ and so on began to appear frequently in conversations in Southern Sudanese circles. Thereafter, Jieng students in Southern Sudan intermediate/Junior Secondary schools and the four Secondary Schools, Rumbek, Malakal, Atar and Juba Commercial began to use these new phrases in schools and to behave militaristically using traditional sticks. They would always demand to lead the student bodies in these schools in the belief that they are superior. When they fail to win elections, they resort to extreme violence leading to the closure of schools. Please see, The root cause of South Sudan’s Problem (https://pachodo.org/pachodo-english-articles/34229-root-cause-of-south-sudan%E2%80%99s-problem?tmpl=component)

When the Addis Ababa agreement of 1972 was signed granting the Southern Region of the Sudan regional government, Abel Alier connived with the Arabs to deprive General Joseph Lagu of the Presidency of the High Executive Council. So, from 1972 to 1981 Alier practised ethnic stocking which developed into the full blown Jieng ethnic domination, we currently see. Please refer to, The decline of Equatoria and emergence of Jieng tribal power in South Sudan (https://pachodo.org/pachodo-english-articles/43679-the-decline-of-equatoria-and-emergence-of-jieng-tribal-power-in-south-sudan) and  Jieng Dinka Attempt to Impose Hegemony and Domination in South Sudan!! (https://pachodo.org/pachodo-english-articles/43775-jieng-dinka-attempt-to-impose-hegemony-and-domination-in-south-sudan)

The first evidence of Jieng ethnic dominance is their control of public institutions. The overwhelming majority of ministerial positions, deputy ministerial positions, undersecretaries, director generals, directors, Chancellors of Universities, Principals of Higher Education and strategic positions in all ministries are filled by Jieng. Most of them are under qualified without any work experiences. The sovereign ministries such as defence, finance, home affairs and so on are routinely occupied by Jieng. President Kiir uses presidential decrees to ensure that state institutions are controlled by his tribes’ mate. Jieng control of state institutions can roughly be estimated at 85% (percent) in a country of 64 tribes. The evidence can be found in the numerous presidential decrees over the years since South Sudan’s independence, until now.

The Jieng intellectuals on the other hand deliberately deny the reality of their domination of South Sudan by pointing their fingers at individuals such as General James Wani Igga, Jospehine Lagu, Dr Martin Elia Lomuro, General Obuto Mamur, Nunu Kumba and few others as evidence that there is no Jieng domination. This is nothing but tokenism or as McGarry calls it – co-option to claim legitimacy. Further, such appointed people do not represent the dominated communities, simply because they are not democratically elected representatives of their people, nor do they act in the interests of their communities.

Additionally, the evidence of Jieng ethnic domination is the control of the entire security sector. The Commander in Chief, President Kiir we know is a Jieng, the Chief of Army is a Jieng, the Chief of Staff is a Jieng, the director of National Security Service is a Jieng, the chief of the police is a Jieng, the minster of home affairs is a Jieng, and one can go on endlessly. Again, the evidence can be found in the numerous presidential decrees. Carol Berger in her thesis, Ethnocide as a tool of state-building and the never-ending war from page 8 to page 11 under the subtitle, ‘The Mechanics of State-building by Ethnocide’ illuminates the manner in which the Jieng disarmed others and built a tribal army. (https://updm-rss.org/UPDM/Ethnocide_Dinka_strategy_dominance.pdf)

In the name of the state, the Jieng under the direction of President Kiir in collaboration with Jieng Council of Elders (JCE), a group of Jieng leaders totalling 45 persons representing the entire Jieng tribe have committed egregious crimes against the people of South Sudan all over the country. In December 2013, the army supported by tribal militia known as Mathiang Anyoor carried out a genocide of the Nuer people. The African Union Commission Inquiry on South Sudan (AUCISS) found that the genocide against Nuer is a state policy. Please refer to its report on this link, (https://peaceau.org/uploads/auciss.final.report.pdf).

In the video from around 39 minutes onward, Awolich says, ‘This (domination) is not really pronounced in the rural areas. The rural Nuer, the rural Dinka and the rural Equatoria don’t go to bed thinking they are dominated by one ethnic group or the other. They go to bed knowing that their leaders have failed and they are suffering from the same crisis. The crisis of lack of governance.’ I agree with Awolich on one thing, that the Dinka (Jieng) do not go to be bed thinking they are dominated. This is obvious because they are members of the dominant group, why would they go to bed thinking they are dominated, when the country operates according to their cultural codes, customs and interests.

However, for the rest of the 63 tribes, the realities are very different. When the night comes, members of the other tribes live in extreme fear and distress, due to cattle herders raiding their villages, killing people wantonly. Examples are frequent raids in Lokiliri, Nimule, KajoKeji, Bilinyang, Fertit area, Lou areas and the list goes on. In Juba and most of the towns, the Jieng army under the guise of ‘Unknown gunmen’ go around murdering people who talk against the Jieng’s tribal domination, or against the government, they also eliminate the educated individuals from other tribes. For example, the killing of Chollo judges, lawyers and public servants in Malakal. The killing of Equatorian professionals such doctors routinely. It is arguable that the Jieng regime is actually practising a policy of evolutionary ethnic cleansing, by adopting a strategy of eliminating future rivals from the dominated groups, so as to, one, prevent the maturity of any future rival or threat, and secondly, to ensure that the dominated tribes are de-skilled, so that should they gain power, they would be significantly hampered in the management of the country, making them an easy target to become subjugated again. My question to Awolich is: Doesn’t he think that the hundreds of thousands of survivors of the Nuer genocide of 2013 and the Equatoria genocide of 2016 caged in the United Nations Protection of Civilian Camps across the country for over a decade go to bed thinking that the Jieng are the problem? Please see, Malong: National security, military intelligence are the “unknown gunmen”. (https://www.radiotamazuj.org/en/news/article/malong-national-security-military-intelligence-are-the-unknown-gunmen), Hilde Johnson’s book, South Sudan, The Untold Story: From Independence to Civil War, and Clemence Pinaud’s book, War and Genocide in South Sudan.

Finally, what evidence does Awolich have for this claim that the people go to bed thinking there is no Jieng domination? Since their video is anchored on intellectuality, would it not be helpful for Awolich to support such grand statements with evidence?

The third evidence of Jieng ethnic domination is unity of the dominant group through polarisation. In 2013, President Kiir supported by the JCE recruited over three thousand Jieng Militia from Bahre El Ghazal, specifically Warrap, and Aweil areas. This militia were indoctrinated to hate the Nuer and any other person or groups that do not support Jieng governance. This was done without the knowledge of the minister of defence General Hoth Mai and the government itself apart from President Kiir alone and the JCE. Please watch, Overcoming Leadership Challenges in South Sudan

(https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Overcoming+Leadership+Challenges+in+South+Sudan)

The truth only came to light after the Jieng committed the Nuer genocide in December 2013 when President Kiir concocted a bogus coup blaming Dr Riek Machar for it. Had it not been for Dr Peter Adwok Nyaba, the Jieng would have fooled the South Sudanese and the world at large. Luckily Dr Nyaba had the relevant and very crucial information which he published under the title, It wasn’t a Coup – Salva Kiir shot himself in the foot (https://www.currentanalyst.alcafricandatalab.com/index-php/conflictsregional/196-it-wasnt-a-coup-salva-kiir-shot-himself-in-the-foot/).

So, President Kiir’s false claim of the coup and the genocide of the Nuer which was still ongoing led to the split of the SPLM/A into three groups. Those remaining with the government overwhelmingly Jieng became known as SPLM/A in government, abbreviated as SPLM/A – IG, and those following DR Riek Machar predominantly composed of Nuer became known as SPLM/A in opposition abbreviated as SPLM/A – IO with a small group of 10 or 11 persons composed of Jieng, Nuer and Equatorians became known as SPLM/A former detainees abbreviated as SPLM/A FDs.

This split provided President Kiir and the JCE the opportunity to directly and openly promote tribalism by stocking ethnic dominance and taking full control of the state’s resources for the benefit of the Jieng. The state media began to parrot allegations of hatred against the Jieng and labelling all the other ethnicities as rebels. This cynical behaviour as expected, pulled the Jieng together against the rest of the 63 tribes. They then applied co-option tactics, along with the use of money to buy members of the dominated groups. For example, they bought off a big section of the Nuer, now referred to as Nuer Weu meaning ‘mercenaries and eaters’. The rest is history.

In the foregoing, it is clear that Jieng ethnic dominance is a reality in South Sudan. All South Sudanese know it. It is part of the lived experience. Why are the Jieng intellectuals trying to trivialise it? The reason is simple. Most of these Jieng intellectuals come from a group of Jieng children, known during the war of liberation, as the Red Army. Dr John Garang promised that they would be the future leaders of South Sudan to replace his generation. Dr Garang sent most of them abroad to study. After the comprehensive peace agreement (CPA) with the Sudan in 2005, Kiir then President of the Southern Sudan region of the former Sudan, continued with the policy by sending huge numbers of Jieng to study inside and outside the country. After completing their studies and being enlightened, this group realised that President Kiir and JCE are destroying their future, and so they want to rescue the situation by invoking Dr Garang’s promise that they are the future leaders.

They believe that it is their right to rule now, in South Sudan, and to them, the Jieng old guard must make way for their ascent. One of the most prominent outspoken members of this group is Dr Peter Biar Ajak who is now languishing in a US jail for attempting to ship weapons to South Sudan. Before relocating to the USA, he used to regularly make his views very clear in KTN. Please watch, Peter Biar- "Generational Exit" philosophy- The reason he was jailed by the government. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3txEef8ydXg)

The reality is that President Kiir and his generation are unwilling to cede power to the Red Army group. This has created a fissure in the dominant group.

Andreas Juon in his paper, ‘Ethnic Accommodation and the Backlash from Dominant Groups’ points out that dominant groups have members who oppose sharing of power, and in most cases, they fight any introduction of change to address domination. These subgroups usually fear that their dominance can be diluted or even destroyed, therefore, they do everything within their power to hold on to their dominance. In the case of South Sudan, the Red Army group appears to hold such views. They all support Jieng ethnic dominance, but they feel that the current rulers need to make way for them to manage the domination of the rest of the country much better. They are gripped with fear that unless they takeover, the Jieng dominance in South Sudan is unlikely to survive. Hence, the Awolichs’, the Biars’, the Kuirs’ and so on are rebelling against President Kiir in the hopes of ensuring the continued dominance of the Jieng in South Sudan.

So, this Red Army group of intellectuals are bent on distorting the reality by trying to manipulate the narrative of Jieng domination in their favour.

Which takes us to the very important issue of academic credentials, and its inappropriate use by Jieng intellectuals. The foregoing shows us that Awolich and Kuir appear to be involved in manipulation and the construction of narratives that suit their objective, which is the maintenance of Jieng domination in South Sudan. To be involved in such deceptive behaviour goes against every ethical model taught in tertiary education. Intellectuals are taught to embrace the values of transparency, impartiality, honesty, respect for life and human development, to work for a fair and better society, and to do others no harm.

The French philosopher Julien Benda did not write his book, The Treason of Intellectuals for nothing. During his time in 1920s, he saw that intellectuals began to shed the values associated with academia in favour of values of materialism, treasure seeking, power seeking, political ideology and self-aggrandisement, no doubt because of the ‘Great Depression’, nonetheless, this, according to Benda, constitutes intellectual treason.

Noam Chomsky in his book, Who Rules the World? in Chapter 1 explains the responsibility of intellectuals brilliantly. He has dealt with this subject extensively. The simpler version can be found in his YouTube video, Noam Chomsky - The Responsibility of Intellectuals. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_36IAosXZec). In it, Chomsky argues that: People like us (intellectuals) who have gone to college, who are relatively well off, have the resources, have the time, have access to the internet, have plenty of opportunities, to Chomsky such access and privilege must yield conclusions about what we ought to be doing.

Quite generally privilege confers opportunity, and opportunity confers responsibility, and responsibility means dedication to challenging and questioning the verities that are imposed on us by doctrinal systems and structural arrangements that are based on hierarchy and domination, and working not only on challenging them, but doing something about the problem to the degree that you have privilege. In short, the more privilege you have, the more you should do - it is as simple as that. (This is a paraphrased part of Chomsky’s commentary in the linked YouTube video.)

What do Awolich and Kuir do, having studied ethics modules at university? Instead, they do the opposite of what Chomsky says above. They indulge in intellectual dishonesty by manipulating narratives to promote the ethnic domination of their tribe in South Sudan, by invoking pseudo intellectualism in the hopes that no one will notice their game. Well, the cat is out of the bag, we know what they are trying to do, but we require a higher standard from those who would seek to educate us. My simple words to Awolich and Kuir is, DO BETTER!

[Truth hurts but it is liberating]

elhagpaul@aol.com

(Join the mailing list!)