Federalism for South Sudan: Could it be an Alternative Mechanism to Address the Cycles of Violence?

Abstract

While federalism, as an ideology championing federation, has a
long history, modern federalism emerged with the birth of the US
federation. Since then, federalism has been applied and adapted
to varying contexts. In recent years, it has been advocated as a
solution to conflict-prone societies. As federalism is about guaranteeing
self-governing rights, sharing powers, and ensuring
checks and balances between and within levels of government,
it is not popular among authoritarian regimes, which see power
politics as a zero-sum-game and disregard the value of equality
and mutual development. They expediently dismiss federalism as
an instrument of disintegration and weakening national unity.
On gaining power, African elites have mostly been unwilling to
share power horizontally and vertically. Liberation movements
preach equality and freedom to win popular support for their
cause, but once they control power they tend to be more authoritarian
than the regimes they overthrew. This demonstrates that,
in the absence of democratic government, liberation from an oppressive
regime does not necessarily guarantee a better political
life under the new leadership.
Authoritarian regimes, confident in the military and other security
forces under their command and enjoying continued financial
support from donors, show no interest in respecting and
listening to their own citizens, nor do they tolerate opposition
parties and differences of opinion. Those in power would rather
support an opposition party in a neighboring country than accommodate
one in their own. For that reason, opposing authoritarian
regimes has necessitated carrying a gun and cooperating
with a neighboring country. This has fuelled endless proxy wars
among neighboring African countries, especially so in the Horn
of Africa.
The aim of this article is to examine whether federalism could
be utilized to mitigate and possibly manage South Sudan’s ongoing
political crisis. Violence and underdevelopment are symptomatic of the exclusion and marginalization of diverse South
Sudanese groups from political and economic powers, both at
the central and local levels. This article, while considering the
past peace processes, argues that while federalism has the potential
to address the country’s political crisis, it could be beset
by the increasing tendency within the political elite to centralize
power by violating the states’ mandate to self-rule, for example,
through the appointment and dismissal of state governors.