Page 28 - EVOLUTION OF THE SUDAN PEOPLE’S LIBERATION MOVEMENT(SPLM),

as compared to an individual of any manifestation. In the words of Aristotle, a state is formed to realize
good life. Good life is synonymous with collective development and advancement of common good as
opposed to individual greed. Wade (1984) concludes that indeed the success of East Asian tigers is as a

result of a strong and economically active state. The question therefore is not whether the state is capable
of development but what kind of a state can undertake that task.

The state as we have pointed out earlier is very central to any liberation movement and Cabral assumed
a more active state in development. Development is thus considered impossible without the active role

of the state. In considering national liberation, the state is considered as development list and socially
transformative. The extent to which the state plays its traditional role of social transformation and initiation
of state led development determines among other factors whether it is accountable to its citizens but more
whether it can meet the Aristotelian bill.

The state in South Sudan had dual ambiguity and contradiction. The struggle meant that the people waged
war to liberate themselves from the Khartoum regime considered oppressive. The liberation, according
to SPLM would usher into what John Garang referred to as the New Sudan. The New Sudan was not the
same as the independent South Sudan that was realized at independence in 2011. The contradiction was that

the people of South Sudan got what they aspired for but not what they fought for. Secondly, the state they
inherited at independent was too weak and polarized to undertake any developmental role. In other words,
from the outset, there was ambiguity as to the meaning and purpose of the armed struggle beyond what

elites narrowly misconstrued as the liberation of the south. This lack of clarity in theory of liberation opened
way to chauvinistic and narrow understanding of the role of the state after the capturing of the state power
in the context of New Sudan or otherwise. The creation and independence of South Sudan created old and
new challenges associated with the both state and nation building. The unresolved question has much to do
with how to address the colonial legacy and high social and political expectations in the context of peace

dividends. The people expected to live a decent and worthy life in dignity(Ntalaja, 1983).

In addition, peace was a prerequisite to bring about development in all manifestations. Finally, the people
expected happiness for their children. The armed struggle meant that people ought to be the primary
beneficiaries of the victory of armed struggle against Islamic-Arab regime in Khartoum. To this end

therefore, the centrality of the state was emphasized and re-emphasized. The liberation narratives stressed the
centrality of the state in realizing peace and development initiatives. The people of South Sudan associated
the state and independence with liberation. However, the independence did not usher into progress as the

country disintegrated into civil war with elite factionalism as hypothesized by Melber. The much anticipated
transformation and peace could not be realized. In deed to some observers, the situation only got worse as
compared to the long years of civil war. The SPLM government failed to deliver on the social goods such
as agriculture, health and education. What is more, the leaders disconnected from the people through policy
and social prioritization of the military over other services such as health, agriculture and education.

The SPLM from the narratives and discourses of the ordinary people surveyed simply betrayed the struggle
for national liberation and learnt little or nothing from history. The following section looks at other national
liberation movements in Africa that followed the hypothetical path and betrayed the struggle for the liberation

prompting another struggle for second or even third liberation depending on the country concerned.

22