Page 86 - EVOLUTION OF THE SUDAN PEOPLE’S LIBERATION MOVEMENT(SPLM),

through creation and preservation of jobs, social nourishment, and provision of affordable or free
education, health and infrastructure. Like the liberation narrative elsewhere, South Sudan dream
of liberation, better lives and peace dividends after liberation sacrifices came to nothing soon

after political independence in 2011.

The country was soon let down by international community and their local partners in SPLM.
The international state building project that was generously funded by the USA and other
development partners became typical rent seeking project whereas the national project associated

with SPLM died before it was even born culminating to a double tragedy of international and
national betrayal.

The SPLM poor governance from the outset since its formation in 1983 with regards to how

it dealt with the Anyanya (II)leadership. The latter were killed and their followers forcefully
coopted into SPLM while the rest joined Khartoum regime. The military orientation was planted
from the inception instead of centrality of politics and diplomacy over militarism. Cabral argued
that politics and not militarism or violence was a better liberating strategy.

“Militarism was one of SPLM ‘s weak point, that is according to me, When one kills your leader
and forces you to join them, you will not work in total submission and cooperation .This was the
case of Anyanya II followers. They were always on the lookout for any opportunity for them
to taint SPLM from inside. The movement abandoned progressive politics and international
community gradually pulled out their support”.(O.I, Gai Tut Memoirs, Accessed 16 May 2017).

The conflict ridden SPLM did not provide political education neither did it have political program
of post conflict reconstruction even as it held conventions from 1994 and after. What is more,
inter community conflicts and ethnic manipulation have taken heavy tool on the people of South

Sudan. As a counter nationalist strategy, the Khartoum regime relied on divide and rule that
would have been defeated through political education and better management of areas already
liberated. In fact SPLM had very poor relations with the host communities due to excessive use
of force and brutality.

The widespread poverty and underdevelopment in the midst of resources that remained largely
unexploited suggests poor leadership that can at best be regarded as rent seeking and fits Cabral’s
description of poor leadership. Basic needs such as shelter, hospitals, schools, roads and clean
water remain a pipe dream to many. In fact massive insecurity, lack of institutions of governance

and structures is part of a tradition of the movement that John Garang planted and encouraged in
the formative years of the movement and sustained to his death in 2005.

There are internal contradictions within the movement with regards to the objectives and

fundamentals of liberation. The clash between new Sudan and independent South Sudan is
evidence of this. Many South Sudanese who preferred independence, as the referendum results
would confirm, did not share Garang quest for new Sudan. Equally the meaning of liberation
was assumed to be military defeat of the Khartoum regime without reference to post liberation
reconstruction. Indeed,all confidential interviews concluded that SPLM did not have a post

conflict agenda and elite polarization was and remained due to lack of an ideology, political

80