July 9, 2014
(JUBA) – Douglas Johnson, a veteran historian and author who has worked in
Sudan for nearly 50 years, said federalism meant different things in the minds
of different people and leaders in the new country.
He gave a lecture
on Saturday at Juba University as the debate over federalism in the country
continues to grow.
In a 24-page
paper entitled Federalism in the History of South Sudanese Political
Thoughts, presented at the lecture, Johnson highlighted the genesis of the
demands before Sudan became independent in 1956.
He briefly
described the attitudes towards federalism and the ways it was presented in
periods ranging from before Sudan’s independence in 1956 up through South
Sudan’s independence today which was achieved through the exercise of the right
of self-determination.
DEMANDS FOR
FEDERALISM
In his
presentation, Johnson referred to historical documented statements by various
southern leaders in regard to federalism and self-determination or separation
of the South from the North.
He said the first
time that the collective opinion of southern Sudanese by then was canvassed
about a national political issue was at the Juba conference of 1947. The
conference, he explained, was exploratory and could take no decision by itself.
The 1947
conference, he said, was about whether the Southern leadership of the educated
class was willing to take part as appointed members of the legislative assembly
that was being established in Khartoum. There was no mention of federalism.
It was in 1953
under the first southern party, the Liberal Party that South Sudanese demanded
federalism in order to vote for independence of the Sudan and maintain its
national unity, or opt for self-determination.
One of the
earliest documented statements came in a petition addressed to the British
governor-general and forwarded by Abdel Rahman Sule, a Muslim merchant from
Juba and co-founder of the Liberal Party, in which southern Sudanese asked for
federation or be administered under the trusteeship of the United Nations till
such time they are able to decide on their own.
The federation
was presented as the only viable path to the unity of Sudan, and
self-determination for the South was also raised as the only acceptable
alternative to federation.
He revealed that
the earliest five southern leaders who emerged in 1953 and organisers of
Liberal Party who promoted the idea of federalism were Benjamin Lwoki
(president of Liberal Party), Abdel Rahman Sule (chairman of the Juba branch),
Buth Diu (member of national parliament from Upper Nile), and senators Paulo
Logali Wani (from Equatoria) and Stanislaus Paysama (from Bahr el Ghazal).
History also
reveals they were also the ones who organised the first ever pan-southern
conference of 250 delegates of chiefs and representatives from the diaspora,
held in the Juba Cinema in October 1954, which debated the southern Sudan’s
future in Sudan.
It was at this
1954 conference that the idea of federalism was publicly debated by a
southern-wide body for the first time.
During this
conference a hot debate ensued for and against federalism in which a delegate,
Necodemo Gore, raised strong concerns entailing that southern Sudan was
premature for federalism as it was going to be difficult to find people or
finance to run a southern federation.
One of the
organisers of the conference and southern representative in the house of
representatives in Khartoum. However, Diu responded to the concerns, saying it
was better to be free, poor and happy than being a slave, a statement which
seemed to win the day.
“May I draw your
attention gentlemen, chiefs, of all tribes, elders, citizens present in this
house, I should like to know whether you in this house want to be slaves or it
will be better for you to be poor and free and happy?” Diu was quoted as
saying.
Diu also
explained to the conference that it was the responsibility of the national
government to work out means to support the southern federation or risk
separation.
“With regard to
the first part of your question, the present government must be bound to manage
the federation of [the] South for fear of separation. If they cannot we can
manage to separate the country. This I am quite sure the present regime has in
mind. To conclude my dearest friend Mr Necodemo we are here for freedom
not money,” Diu said in his remarks.
A vote was then
taken and federation was passed by 227 to 0, with seven abstentions.
The idea of
federalism was also developed in response to demands for self-determination and
was explicitly expressed at the roundtable conference convened in Khartoum in
March 1965 when Aggrey Jaden, a prominent Southern politician, returned to the
principle, which he also equated with the struggle for independence.
DIFFERENT
MEANINGS
Professor Johnson
argued that to different leaders and citizens of South Sudan, federalism means
many things. He said some may want to adopt the centralised federalism system
adopted in Sudan in 1994, which he said was only theoretical as the power and
wealth were still at the centre.
Others he said
may fall short and establish federalism similar to a decentralised system,
which gives and takes devolved powers to and from the smaller units of
governance while depriving them of the resources needed for development.
Others may go for
full blown constitutional federalism in all its aspects, where powers are
divided between the national and state governments, while others may think it is
about the division of people and dislodging others from one’s own region or
state.
Johnson stressed
that while the current ruling SPLM party succeeded in achieving independence
through the exercise of self-determination, it did not prepare and define in advance
the kind of system of government the new country should adopt.
He also lamented
that the initial renewed calls for federalism were made during the drafting of
the transitional constitution in 2011.
“Federalism has
once again emerged as central to the discussion of how South Sudanese wish to
govern themselves and live together now that they have achieved their
independence. But self-determination means more than choosing independence. It
also means choosing a form of self-government, and that choice has still to be
made,” he said.
