OpEd, Politics

Why today’s diversity divides more than yesterday’s

Don’t look at diversity as a new word, it is a very old word in the manifesto of the SPLM. In fact, before SPLM, diversity was existing. For every opportunity that used to come, the leaders made sure it was divided equally so that every community felt represented.

If the opportunity at hand was one, it would be given to the community that had not taken any opportunity before or has taken fewer opportunities. Everything, including recruitment of people into the army, was done through diversity.

When South Sudan got independence, diversity was not thrown into the latrine. Diversity became the mostly-used objective in the manifesto of the ruling party, SPLM. To date, any opportunity whether in SPLM or any other political party, is based on diversity.

But the diversity of today does not work like the diversity of yesterday, why? The yesterday’s diversity was coupled with competence. If an opportunity was for Community A, it was mandatory for Community A to bring a competent representative. Failure to bring a competent person may lead to the opportunity being given to someone competent in another community.

On top, diversity was not done as a means of fighting against some communities to silence them. It was only a means of fair representation. Nothing else was attached to it. That was the reason why the then Southern Sudanese succeeded in the liberation struggle.

But the diversity of today is not coupled with anything. If, indeed, it is coupled with anything, that thing would be subversion.  If the chance is for a certain community, it is up to them to choose anyone they like. Even if they choose a dog, that dog will be endorsed without checking whether it is toothless or has teeth, or whether it runs faster or has lost its ability to run faster.

To a very bad extent, the RT-GoNU has spoiled diversity to the core, to the real core that opportunities are given to whoever is in the list. As long as one is nominated on the basis of bribery, loyalty or compensation, that nominee must be given a position as long as he/she breathes.

Even if a known incompetent person is nominated, there is no way to reject him/her as the agreement dictates the appointing authority to appoint anyone in the list. This is annoying. You find that the government is dominated by very incompetent people who cannot even get positions in their own communities if such positions are won through competence.

Today’s diversity is done in such a way that people are collided to lock horns. A relative is replaced with another relative. An opponent is replaced with another opponent. So, if you look at it closely, you see that it looks like a “divide and rule” diversity. Because diversity is now based on anything apart from one’s competence, competent people feel it is an abuse to leave them and take incompetent people.

They feel unwanted, move apart and form a group to oppose the incompetent people in power. This is why today’s diversity divides more than yesterday’s diversity. It would be wise to give an opportunity based on diversity, but on a condition that the nominee must be a competent person.

If issues to do with loyalty are also considered, they should not hold much weight. Competence is above all kinds of workforce. It is competence that makes one win a job and from that job, one gains an experience. It is of great importance to couple diversity with competence.

Thanks for reading “Sowing The Seed Of Truth”.

Comments are closed.