By Wenne Madyt Dengs

Both violence and non-violence are all avenues of toppling a naughty regime based on international political context. Although violence technique remains the quickest, it is the most inopportune mechanism that leads to grievous damage to the State in which it is set off within a period of short time like for the case of South Sudan where numerous people are reported killed, and as half of the population has already fled the country.

From the onset of adverse internal revolts within the Republic of South Sudan, my special view is that there had been great fissure in identifying weaknesses that could be used as tools of warfare to defeat the incumbent regime. One could have been wondering [like me], and asked unanswered question on what prompted those who initiated their unsuccessful rebellions, especially when a rebellion is started and its progress begin shrinking within the next few weeks. 

What amuses somebody is how their leaders shamelessly call for peace negotiations when they see their muscles are contracting and growing placid against well-pumped swollen muscles of the government. Hence, what comes in their mind is not what provoked them to launch insurgence but fear of instant defeat engulfs their due strength. 

Besides, to my own understanding, most of the rebellions staged in South Sudan lacked subjectivity. Instead they have objectivity in the sense that they are not in position of winning comprehensive public interest in areas where the serving regime fails to satisfy public principal needs. 

Look, a government may have an array of motives and objectives essential to its domination: power, wealth, position, reshaping the society as it did via fracturing of a ten-state-based South Sudan to continuing numerous state-based South Sudan, and so on. 

Those military generals and compatriots who are engaged in fighting in this nation should chiefly know that once the rebellion is declared there is no more room to seek negotiations. Rebellions are not staged for fame or for the sake of name. This is because in the scene of asking for negotiation, the government will still try to preserve its goal. 

Resistance, not negotiations, is significant for change in rebellions were deep-seated issues are at stake. In all cases, struggle must continue to drive particular regime out of power. Victory is always determined not by starting a resistance and opts for negotiations; it is through sensible use of most applicable methods available. 

Changing a phase of fighting from violence to non-violence by itself is believed by specific regime (i.e. South Sudan’s) which is being dealt with as an indicator of opposition’s susceptibility of which it gains an automatic primacy, and pays defeat ears to the rebel call for negotiation, taking a case on spot from what government of South Sudan did to Cirilo’s men who are still stranded in Nimule for over ninety days-waiting for the government as well as peace brokers to support [the] negotiation. 

What is the meaning of such calls for negotiation within a diminutive gestation for a rebellion? Is it not a prodigal son-like rebellion? I have little energy to shed on his (Cirilo) motives as to why he began his one-eyed rebellion. I just figure out maybe it was a miscalculated move from him and his men as a consequence of idle wealth, tribal incitement and inexperience. 

To be exact, either organized or rampant brutalities do not always reproduce needed results for capitulation and cooperation for regimes like the one in South Sudan.  

In dominant party’s situations like what it is currently, staging a rebellion can be difficult because in such systems, a ruling party has dug deeper roots within populations and it becomes hard to achieve particular objectives of a resistance. 

South Sudan’s present regime is ever sensitive to actions and plans that threaten its functions. So, it can decide to threaten as well as punish those who seem to know the reality; those who strike and fail to entertain its blur future. 

All in all, the regime is always to blame for encouraging rampant — and even petty — rebellions through its heavy-handedness or the policy to cause tribe-based insurgencies or ‘buying peace’ back from such ramshackled rebellions. However, it is unpatriotic abd shameful to stage a rebellion and cause bloodshed of innocent citizens for fame or any other game mentioned earlier on here.


The author, Wenne Madyt Dengs, is an aspiring South Sudanese poet and writer. He can be reached via: wennemdyt63@gmail.com


NB: Opinions expressed on this blog are not necessarily those of the AFTABOSS Bloggers as an association.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s