Page 91 - EVOLUTION OF THE SUDAN PEOPLE’S LIBERATION MOVEMENT(SPLM),

“This war had nothing different from what we had experienced before; power struggle amongst
the elites accelerated the war. These elites had followings especially tribal and this fueled the
war even more. This war greatly reversed the positive that had been realized through the national

reconstruction plan”.(OI, Akuot Atem Mayen, 20June, 2017).
The multi donor World Bank led reconstruction in South Sudan did not have the expected

impact and its policies partly contributed to the eruption of the war in 2013. The reconstruction
relied on Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) for delivery of services marginalizing the
state. Furthermore, the donors gave priority to relief work and rehabilitation processes seeking

reconciliation at the expense of youth employment and economic reconstruction. There was very
little attempt to address the risk factors that caused the national war of liberation in the first place
and historical and prevailing inequalities defined by ethnicity, religion, class, and regions across
South Sudan. The reconstruction of South Sudan ended up recreating the past or even worsening
it through neoliberal economic reforms that sought to rapidly drive South Sudan towards liberal

democracy and market economy. The reconstruction policies and economic reforms after South
Sudan joined the International Monetary Fund and World Bank forced the already fragile
economy and weak state adopt the austerity measures that marginalized the majority of the

people and diverted resources to non-core sectors of the economy that excluded agriculture,
health and education. The bulk of the money went to the military that was beyond accountability
and transparency. The state was weakened and the power of NGOs increased in the provision of
services with the result that the state could not its traditional role and especially relate fully with
the citizens in whose name armed struggle was waged.

The SPLM government as we have noted had waged armed struggle since 1983 and the war
had diverse ramifications. The war destroyed the infrastructure such as housing, energy,
communication, water and transport. It also increased the number of people in need of social
assistance, internally displaced persons, refugees, while human security and development
quality of life indicators-life expectancy, mother and child mortality rate, access to health and

education) worsened. Economically, there was a large fiscal deficit as a result of high military
expenditure, inflation and increased debts that accumulated during the war and was passed over
to the government of South Sudan after independence in 2011.

”South Sudan was in bad shape. The new government in place inherited problems, economic and
social problems. Basic social services were a problem to provide since most of the money was

channeled into military programs”(OI, William Nyuon Beny, 2017).

The world economic crises of 2008 and the Arab spring of 2011 and beyond allowed great powers
to focus on other world troubled spots thereby increasing military activities within South Sudan
due to historical grievances and internal weaknesses within SPLM. The turning point was the
reduction of oil prices at the international markets that affected the ability of the state to meet

its internal and external debt obligations and social, political and economic reconstruction of the
country especially after the official end of the World Bank reconstruction initiative. The donor
driven reconstruction was not based on any clear analysis of South Sudan history, economy and
politics hence it paid little attention to address both the social and national question concurrently.

The South Sudan Development Plan (SSDP)-2011-2013 had clear objectives of tackling social
85