Page 92 - EVOLUTION OF THE SUDAN PEOPLE’S LIBERATION MOVEMENT(SPLM),

inequalities, good governance, conflict prevention, peace building human and economic
development, it was never implemented and the country reverted back to civil war. The next
section focuses on how South Sudan reconstruction and peace could be realized.

7.3 Towards realization of peace and reconstruction in South Sudan

There are two contending narratives as to why civil war in South Sudan reignited two years
into independence and what could be done about it. The first school of thought argues that the

problem with South Sudan can be attributed to the internal weaknesses within the Sudan People’s
Liberation Movement especially power struggle and polarization among the elites. This school
of thought argues that the traditional power struggle between President Salva Kiir and deputy

president Riek Machar that goes back to 1980s and has defined SPLM politics triggered fresh
war in 2013. The Riek Machar faction advocates for reforms and a transition from a national
liberation movement to a modern and functional political party with clear separation of powers
and responsibilities between the party and the state. Furthermore, factions within SPLM have
called for democratization of the party, state and the economy through undertaking of fundamental

reforms across all sectors in the absence of an articulated blue print on economic, political and
social reforms in South Sudan.

“Many bought that school of thought posting that the disunity between Riak Machar and Salve
Kiir was the main reason for incessant civil wars in South Sudan. This was the reason why Riak
advocated for a democratization process for inclusion and proper government formation.”(OI,

William Nyuon Beny, 2017).

In other words, the problem in South Sudan is attributable to internal factors within the SPLM
and other factors attributed to poor leadership.

The second school of thought attributes the problem to the nature of the post-colonial state itself
and argues that the problem that South Sudan faces are not unique but similar to any other facing
the post-colonial state in Africa. Claude Ake(1996),examined the nature and character of the state

in Africa together with social relations, development, democracy and even unique features of the
state in Africa and concluded that state should be a major actor in post conflict reconstruction in
Africa. Ake(1996), observes that the state in Africa is a tool of development and social security
and that is why many Africans supported armed struggle and quest for democracy thereafter.

Furthermore, Ake posits that it is the donor policies in 1980s in the form of structural adjustment
programs that rolled back the gains of nationalism leading to the post-colonial deep crises.

As a result, the state failed to provide for the needs of its citizens, wellbeing, aspirations, security,
perform the traditional role of the state, experience legitimacy deficit, and rendered irrelevant
in the eyes of its people. The state became a tool of pleasing the donors as nation building and
development became the work of private sector and the markets. The post-colonial state thus

resorted to oppression, corruption and marginalization of its citizens for its own survival but
has remained weak, insecure and unstable. The multiple crises that the state confronts every day
has created insecurity, instability, underdevelopment, conflicts and worsened poverty that has

destroyed livelihoods and opportunities for development.
86