The best approach to reform
Article
Comments (6)
email Email
print Print
pdfSave
separation
increase
decrease
separation
separation
facebook
myspace
twitter
buzzyahoo
By Zechariah Manyok Biar
July 2, 2013 - In my recent article, “Proven wrong,” I suggested that
the way South Sudan can improve by at least one point next year in the
failed states grading is to target at least two issues that make it a
failed state and improve on them. I did not offer the strategies that
the Government could use to select these two issues. But Akol Liai
Mager reminded me by giving his suggestions for selection under the
article, making me think that I should go ahead and suggest the
approach that I believe would be effective for both the selection and
the improvement of the two indicators.
We should first remind ourselves on the indicators that were used for
grading this year. They will be the same ones used next year, I
assume. They include “a state whose central government is so weak or
ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its
territory; non provision of public services; widespread corruption and
criminality; refugees and involuntary movement of populations; sharp
economic decline.” They are the ones I would like our leaders to
choose two indicators from and improve them.
If South Sudan leaders were to sit in a meeting and pick two out of
the above indicators, it would take them some hours to agree on the
selection strategy. If they were to do the elimination strategy, for
example, then they could put things that they have no real control
over aside and prioritize the easy-to-implement ones so that they
could achieve them easily.
However, the indicators that are hard to achieve might be the ones
which carry more points. Leaving them out would mean that South Sudan
would stay in the same position next year even if leaders had improved
on the two indicators they had selected. With these difficulties in
our minds, how do we figure out the best approach for selection and
improvement of the most important indicators? We need to first figure
out what matters.
What matters, to me, is the highest good—which is doing no
unjustifiable harm to any life. Justifiable harms are penalties that
are defined by law in a country and are carried out legally after fair
legal procedures. For our leaders to use this method successfully,
they should develop a philosophy that emphasizes the valuing of
individual’s life. We see this philosophy in many countries that rank
highly in good governance. They value individual’s life and work hard
to make sure that death could only take a person in either under
legally defined sentences or under conditions that are beyond human
control.
Countries in which leaders are committed to the philosophy of doing no
unjustifiable harm to any life make citizens feel that their security
is guaranteed by law. Death in the hands of criminals would still
occur, but citizens would always trust government to bring criminals
to book. Life becomes precious in these countries and almost everybody
feels good to live in them. Each citizen becomes the keeper of his/her
brother or sister.
In these countries, for example, when a building collapsed and bury at
least one person under the rubbles hundreds of rescuers would risk
their lives to rescue that one person. It could take days to rescue
one person and those who are working to rescue such a person would not
take any break for days. Citizens with smart ideas are called in to
contribute ideas on the best way to rescue the person and the rescuers
keep on working tirelessly. Each person does his or her rescue part
willingly. All they care about is that a person is rescued to live.
The top leader of such a country could even move to the site to
encourage the rescuers. The media do their part to show the nation how
they care for one another. Selfishness is reduced in such a country.
Not only do people who believe in the importance of individual’s life
risk their lives to save a person, they make sure that no citizen is
in any preventable danger. If our President hears, for example, that
fifteen people on average are buried each day in Juba, he would
commission researchers to find out why fifteen people die every day in
Juba. He would also make sure that the media have the freedom they
need to keep him informed through their reporting on what is taking
place in many parts of the country, including pointing out weaker
areas in his government.
The commissioned researchers could come back with the findings after a
given time, showing that about three people die each day because they
are killed by unknown gunmen; about four people are killed through
reckless driving; and the remaining eight people die of natural death.
Being enlightened by the findings, the President could convene a
cabinet meeting and ask the ministers to come up with strategies on
how to reduce the death rate each day in Juba from fifteen people to
at least three people. The Ministry of Interior would be asked to
reduce the death of seven people who are killed each day by unknown
gunmen and reckless driving to at least one death per a day within
three months. The Ministry of Health would be asked to reduce the
death of people who die of treatable diseases from eight to two people
per a day within the same period. These strategies could then be
carried out in all South Sudanese towns as they are done in Juba. The
Office of President and the Ministry of Cabinet Affairs can be tasked
with the monitoring and evaluation of these activities so that their
implementations are carried out as planned.
Any leader whose institution failed to meet its targets at a specified
time can be reminded by the monitoring and evaluation committees from
the Office of President and the Ministry of Cabinet Affairs and asked
to improve. Consistent underperformance could then lead to relieving
of such a leader of his or her duties. Leaders whose institutions
perform beyond expectations, on the other hand, can be publicly
honored in different ways by the President.
If these strategies are implemented as planned and with consistency,
we could find ourselves within less than a year improving on the
indicators that include the ineffectiveness of government since the
Government will now be practically in control over daily issues that
affect citizens; non provision of public services since valuing of
individual’s life would improve service delivery throughout the
country; and widespread criminality because the Ministry of Interior
will be going after criminals—either cattle raiders or armed gangs—in
order to reduce the number of people killed each day by criminals.
The issues that will remain unsolved now would be widespread
corruption; refugees and involuntary movement of populations; and
sharp economic decline. However, sharp economic decline would be
solved if the oil continues to flow like it is now, leaving unsolved
only the issues of corruption and the refugee movement.
Corruption and the movement of refugees could take sometimes to solve.
But if leaders take caring for people they lead as a priority, then
corruption is going to reduce significantly.
All the above could give our citizens the feeling that the Government
is taking care of them. Their level of satisfaction with the system
will go up and they will start discouraging criminals among their
communities. Rebellion would reduce, solving the displacement problem.
South Sudan could now rank higher, making its leaders part of role
models for good governance in the world.
These ideas sound like wild dreams here, but they are achievable. It
is the political will to achieve them that matters.
Zechariah Manyok Biar can be reached at [email protected]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"South Sudan Info - The Kob" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SouthSudanKob/CAJb14op7fmnM2py8Joh_NDUhB77AMrAcQNVG55eLLR9wr%2BHiTA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
