A recent opinion piece by Dr. Adwok Nyabol has sparked debate in South Sudan, with many agreeing that the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) has failed to transition from a liberation movement into a genuinely democratic political party. Morris Kuol Yoll, a South Sudanese Canadian, shares this view, stating that the SPLM's military-political culture has remained unchanged since its inception. Yoll argues that a movement tied to its military structure cannot easily become a democratic party.
Yoll's concerns about the SPLM's democratic credentials date back to 1998, when he was the General Secretary of the Sudanese Community Relief and Rehabilitation organization in Canada. At the time, he argued that the SPLM and the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) were inseparable, and that the movement's leadership was not to be questioned. Yoll's warnings were dismissed by many supporters, who believed that the SPLM/A could champion the political aspirations of the people of South Sudan.
The SPLM's internal structure and leadership have been shaped by appointments from above rather than transparent and competitive internal elections. This has resulted in a concentration of political authority, state authority, and military authority in the same leadership structure, reflecting the characteristics of a military-oriented movement rather than a democratic political party. Yoll argues that this has led to a system where power revolves around appointments, decrees, and political accommodation rather than genuine competition.
Since independence, the SPLM has maintained the appearance of democracy while preserving centralized control. Elections are promised, democratic language is used, and political institutions exist, but potential challengers are often absorbed into government through appointments and political deals. Opposition figures who might threaten the status quo are brought into the system, weakening the development of a strong and independent opposition.
Yoll's greatest concern is the growing perception that sections of the political elite have come to view themselves as entitled to the state, its institutions, and its resources. Positions of influence in government, diplomacy, security institutions, the military, and state enterprises appear concentrated within networks of family relations, relatives, clans, friendships, and political loyalty. This pattern is deeply damaging to public confidence in the state.
The concentration of power and influence within certain networks has led to a culture where loyalty is often more rewarding than merit, and political silence is more valuable than constructive criticism. Many ambitious individuals wait for the next presidential decree rather than compete for public office through democratic processes. In such an environment, elections risk becoming little more than a political ritual.
The central question facing South Sudan today is whether a movement founded on military command can genuinely embrace democratic accountability, internal party democracy, political competition, and the possibility of losing power through the ballot box. Until this question is answered in practice rather than rhetoric, the SPLM's democracy will remain a façade, beneath which lies a system still governed by the instincts of a military movement and increasingly influenced by a culture of elite entitlement.
Key points
- The SPLM has failed to transform from a liberation movement into a genuinely democratic political party.
- The movement's internal structure and leadership have been shaped by appointments from above rather than transparent and competitive internal elections.
- The concentration of power and influence within certain networks has led to a culture where loyalty is often more rewarding than merit.
