Page 93 - EVOLUTION OF THE SUDAN PEOPLE’S LIBERATION MOVEMENT(SPLM),

The degeneration into war in South Sudan can however be attributed to both internal and external
factors. The donor reconstruction policies and preference for liberal democracy, market economy
and state building at the expense of public good explains partly why South Sudan erupted into civil

war soon after independence and post conflict reconstruction failed at the same depth. Although
state organs are important in the management of public affairs, the state must first articulate its
vision, define its liberation objectives and formulate a strategy for execution responsible for post
conflict reconstruction. The price of liberating South Sudan was paid in blood as the country’s

physical infrastructure went into ruins just as the economy, social fabric, communities scattered
as refugees and internally displaced. The market and liberal peace narrative and reconstruction
was incompatible with the aspirations of the

People of South Sudan. Liberation movements elsewhere in Africa pursue their declared
objectives of creating a democratic, just and prosperous future. Such efforts though as the
state is suffocated by austerity measures that sustain crises and allocate resources to areas not

considered as relevant to the ideals of the post-colonial state in Africa.

Upon declaration of independence, the liberation movement ought to define its character,
emancipation charter, coherent macro and micro economic policies, and a new social contract
in form of a new democratic constitution. A constitution making process and reconfiguration
of the state after the war requires political leadership that places at the center the history of

the struggle, hopes and aspirations. Eritrean People’s Liberation Front for example launched
armed struggle against Ethiopia with armed victory and proclamation of independence in 1993.
In their reconstruction vision, the movement developed a national development that sought to

create a modern, technologically advanced and internationally competitive economy within
a period of twenty years. They envisioned an economy driven by agriculture, export oriented
industrialization, and reconstruction of social welfare through increased social spending due to
war legacy.

Peace within and without was given new impetus. There are similarities between Eritrea and

South Sudan in terms of national reconstruction and the nature of armed struggle and the post
reconstruction society they sought to build. In both cases, Ethiopia and Sudan were the oppressors
and new independence meant that oppressors shall remain immediate neighbors unlike in the
1960s where the imperial colonizing powers departed physically from the continent. Peace
dividend and sustainable peace is very important variable for reconstruction. Indeed, the war

between Eritrea and Ethiopia in 1997 had heavy toll on the reconstruction of Eritrea and the
caliber of the state that emerged in both Eritrea and Ethiopia respectively:

Yes, there are similarities. The oppressors are neighbours and for the reconstruction process for
the new state, consultation between them and the former state must be there. This more often
crippled and dragged the reconstruction process in both cases.”(O1, Chief Tunguar, 30/10/2016).

In South Sudan, the reconstruction was externally driven and sabotaged by Khartoum regime

through ethnically motivated destabilization policy of ethnic manipulation. Unlike Eritrea, South
Sudan degenerated into civil war two years into independence and the donor driven reconstruction
flopped with limited success.

87