By Theem Isaac Machar Akot
When fire burns a baby, to whom does the blame go? Does it go to the baby, the fire, or the babysitter? Neither the baby nor the fire is to blame.
The blame genuinely goes to the babysitter. However, this is a caution to those who blame the subjects too much for all the law-breaching practices. Personally, this nation, which time and time again sings a bogus peace-making song, still has a long way to go. The ruling party, in this case, bears all the blame. Much as other politicians from different parties have shares in it, the ruling party carries the biggest. Coercion of the members of the opposition party to conditionally join the ruling party is a complete horror—it is insecurity within the security framework.
As a non-partisan, I need help here. I need education on how people acquire a party’s membership and political participation. I interrogate: Who makes political decisions? Does a party do it or a person? I hope the decision to join a party is personal—just like how the believers choose which of their options are denominations and so pray to one God—it doesn’t necessarily mean that when your dad’s church is the Catholic Church, you, the sons, should all be members of the Catholic Church. What you all pray to is one God, according to the Bible, which means having faith in God and thus contributing to the well-being of your family as a whole. Churches are just places of worship that don’t encourage faith discrimination.
The same thing applies to politics: there’s no party discrimination. Else, there’s only the rejection of incompetent leaders and the acceptance of competent leaders. I may not know how it feels for others to coerce the rest to leave the political party of their choice because I have never been a politician before. But based on emotional responses, independence is the whole-soul-soothing aspect. Hence, robbing me of it pains. It is unwise for a wise man to dictate even one’s sons to join his party because the children are his subjects unwillingly. It is also unwise and unlawful for a ruling party to intimidate the weak opposition.
Besides, parties are just distributional systems for allocating chances—what matters is one’s contributions to the people. I myself, who care so much about the nation’s progress, feel comfortable with him who meets the standards of quality leadership.
Additionally, most of us are following the monsoon wind—the ideology of dying hard for the SPLM—although it cannot handle the quandaries at hand. Let’s avoid the use of common sense and adopt the application of practical realities. Valuing the party more than an individual’s credentials is the least an informed society does.
It is very unfortunate that the most stressed constitution that talks about freedom of every South Sudanese, regardless of political backgrounds, only remains on paper. While the application of the tribal hate-sponsored common sense accrues, there is a street-dominating statement that—there is freedom of speech in the country, but there is no freedom after speech. This depriving issue has drastically affected political stability in the nation.
The writer is a third-year student at the University of Juba School of Education Department of English Language and Literature.