Saving South Sudan - general discussion

Forum (Articles)

Offer

Partners

Rules

Tips

FAQ

Begin!

Donate

Here is where you can discuss anything about the proposed UTSS Constitution in general - that isn't about any specific part.

If your discussion is of a specific part of the UTSS proposed Constitution, please post it at the relevant section at Talk:Saving_South_Sudan.

(Start discussion here. Sign your contribution with 4 tildes (~~~~). )

A Simpler Vision of South Sudanese Government

The Coalition of Advocates for South Sudan (website) has asked: "the Board has sent a message to the chairman of the IGAD group working on the High Level Revitalization Conference. If you have ideas that you would like us to explore about how to structure a new interim government or how else to advocate for peace, please let me know."

Along with that invitation were some brainstorm-type ideas meant to generate discussion. I am a member of the group. Here, indented, are the questions for discussion, and in between are my own responses. Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

>The peace talks in Addis Ababa are going nowhere and a new round is about to begin. Many observers judge that the reason for this is that the Kiir Regime believes that it has no need to compromise because it has won the war on the ground and "holds all the cards". At the same time, others believe that the people are showing definite signs of being totally fed up with the leadership and want to see a government without either President Kiir or Dr. Machar.

> What are your thoughts about this?

> If it is true that the Kiir regime has no desire for change, what can we do to get them to the table with a serious desire for a just and lasting peace?

Kiir's desire for change can be judged more accurately when a clearly defined possible change is within reach.

How can I explain this? To the extent the majority of the people unwilling to become involved in the details of managing the interactions between citizens, SOMEONE ELSE will have to manage their interactions. The fact that Sudanese people as a whole were satisfied with no better security for their freedom than the 2011 "constitution", that shows a very low level of interest by the people in managing their own freedom. Or a low level of understanding, which has the same effect. That is what needs to change! To the extent it does not, it is useless to blame Kiir. When people will not govern themselves they need a dictator, and to the extent they can't get along with each other, they need a ruthless, violent dictator. >

> Do you think that the diaspora has influence? If so how is it being used?

> Is the diaspora ready for peace? > Is it helping or hurting? Is it still funding the militia groups? > What should the diaspora be doing?

> What actions should CASS be taking?

Diaspora has overwhelming influence, but only potential. Diaspora has potentially greater wealth, and purchasing power for weapons, etc., than the "government". It has the potential through networking with families to gather its information together into detailed news sources, down to the region, providing the intelligence needed to neutralize fighting. But not as long as Sudanese in diaspora only meet once a year to argue with each other for a couple of hours.

Until diaspora gets really busy studying and debating a form of government which will actually secure to them the power to manage their own freedom in Sudan, and freedom for their families in Sudan, I see no hope of peace.

It is wrong and self defeating to blame the "president", or Machar. Wrong because they have acted about as well as is possible in managing a population that will not manage their own peace. Self defeating because when the talk is "We will never let Kiir and Machar hold power again in the new government", they will double down and resist to their last drop of sweat and blood. But tell them they will have a chance to be elected in a new government, and their incentives will reverse: they will work to please people so that they might secure votes for themselves.

Goals of Interim Government

Is the future government of South Sudan being discussed more by other countries than by South Sudanese? There are international discussions of what to do about the civil war in South Sudan. There is talk of imposing an interim (temporary) government on South Sudan to neutralize the war-making of the current government. Indented, below, are a wish list discussed by CASS, Coalition of Advocates for South Sudan, and discussion of it by Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Three equal Co-Presidents one representing each of the three major divisions of South Sudan and each with veto power.

Senior officials of the interim government not eligible for positions in the permanent government.

Parliamentary government rather than U.S. style.

Small government with maximum transparency.

Financial control by a treasury with oversight by an internationally appointed body.

No closed meetings allowed. Maximum transparency required.

Freedoms of press, speech, assembly, movement, and rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Hybrid judicial system.

Elimination of secret police, arbitrary arrest, and secret prisons.

May I comment on your discussions of interim government? What is missing in this wish list is any description of who gets to choose the government leaders, and by what means. For example, will historical tribal councils have any voice? Will tribal leaders - that is, leaders of tribes who genuinely represent tribes by virtue of having been chosen by their people? Will there be an election by "one man one vote" where the decisions of large tribes will render the voice of small tribes inconsequential? Will the voice of Sudanese where there is war be written off because elections there would be dangerous?

Why do you speak of an interim government rather than just start talking about a permanent government? If the interim government is not approved by ratification conventions involving a robust involvement of most of the people, how can it be trusted to maintain peace any better than the current "government"? After all, the 2011 "constitution" had an impressive amount of citizen involvement. Can an interim government format have even that much? Surely much MORE involvement is needed in discussing and debating and approving a form of government now, to make it better than then. Any proposal approved only by a very small group surely can't represent the choice of the people better than the 2011 version.

And yet we see from the "Arab Spring" movement that just giving everyone a vote, without involving them in enough discussion to vote intelligently, or to instilling in people the passion to be involved in sustaining their own freedom, only gives people the ability to choose their dictators.

But if there IS robust involvement of most Sudanese in approving an interim government, why limit that precious rare opportunity to discussing temporary measures? Why not aim for consensus on government, period - permanent government?

Three equal Co-Presidents one representing each of the three major divisions of South Sudan and each with veto power.

One option considered by the U.S. Constitutional Convention was a President with statutory "advisors", as opposed to letting the president select his own cabinet. The idea was rejected according to the Federalist Papers because that would only make it difficult to know who to blame for bad decisions. If there are three equal co-presidents, will the contribution of each to their group decision somehow create a public record as robust as that created by debates in a legislature, so that the public knows who to hold accountable? Or will the public even have the opportunity to remove those who represent them poorly?

The US system has a veto, but an opportunity to override. I can't imagine an absolute veto in anyone's hands! In the U.S. it seems quite a number of lawmakers seem committed to making America fail. Fortunately voters have the chance to remove them, and short imminent disaster is forestalled with robust checks and balances. With an absolute veto, it would only take one.

Senior officials of the interim government not eligible for positions in the permanent government.

Are you sure? What if someone does well? Our Continental Congress produced many patriots who proved themselves there and moved on to the new government, like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson. But how would members be selected?

Parliamentary government rather than U.S. style.

I wonder why? What circumstances in Sudan do you think rule out the U.S. system and make the parliamentary system the obvious choice? And WHICH parliamentary system?

Small government with maximum transparency.

This is of course a very important goal. It is relative. And subjective. How small is "small"? I mean, what numbers can you impose beyond which government must not grow, which can be put into a Constitution so that officials who grow government beyond those numbers can be identified as violating the Constitution, so they can be impeached? Republicans here say they want "small government", but their definition of "small" must grow every year. It seems like saying courts should always be "just", or wives should always be "pretty". Or children should always be "nice". It is subjective. It is like trying to harness wind. Our U.S. Constitution - especially not counting the amendments - avoids articulating the goals which it is hoped lawmakers will pursue, and sticks to very objectively defined powers and limits to powers.

Financial control by a treasury with oversight by an internationally appointed body.

By "oversight", do you mean any power to control or limit the decisions of Sudanese officials? In the U.S., the Treasury is created by and overseen by Congress - by its elected officials in the House, uniquely equipped to represent "one man one vote", and the Senate, qualified to give equal representation to states. Do you envision a treasury outside the control of elected officials?

No closed meetings allowed. Maximum transparency required.

Although the goal is noble, is it possible? Strategy sessions would become illegal. Is there a legitimate role for confidentiality when you are trying to reason with somebody?

Most of us can't answer from personal experience the need for deliberative bodies to be able to strategize and work out differences in private. But many of us are married. Maybe we can relate that way. We don't like to argue with our spouses in public. It makes everyone feel embarrassed. We like to work out our differences as much as we can in private. We especially don't want to argue in front of our children, about our rules for our children. Because our children are not generally angels and will "use" clues from those exchanges to manipulate us. But what if privacy were outlawed? Until I would not be terrified having all my private discussions and arguments with my wife automatically broadcast to Facebook, I am nervous about making privacy illegal for deliberative bodies.

Freedoms of press, speech, assembly, movement, and rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Of course these are in our Bill of Rights. The current 2011 Constitution has some of that, and even throws in free medical care for everybody, never mind that the national budget for that is literally enough for a box of bandaids for every Sudanese. Here, these goals have become windows for our courts to impose their interpretations on legislatures. The real guarantee of these goals is a balance of powers between the branches of government, correctable by voters.

Hybrid judicial system.

I don't even know what that means. In the Federalist Papers, there was much discussion of the strict separation of legislative from judicial powers. It was acknowledged that there is slight overlap; for example the President's veto is a voice in the legislative process, the Senate's confirmation of Presidential appointees is a voice in the Executive process,

Elimination of secret police, arbitrary arrest, and secret prisons.

Amen! Those are fairly objective, achievable goals.